New Book on Amazon (TCoE)

[Emongnome777]

https://www.amazon.com/Dungeons-Dragons-November-Announced-August/dp/0786967021/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=dungeons+and+dragons+november+title&qid=1598275229&s=books&sr=1-1

Thoughts what it could be? Looks like we'll find out today.

[Unoriginal]

Unlikely to be a new adventure, at least.

[nickl_2000]

Unlikely to be a new adventure, at least.

Why is that? I'm just curious what you argument is on this.

[jaappleton]

Its player options. Xanathar's 2: Electric Xanadu, if you will. (Credit to Tulok the Barbarian for the title)

It has to do with Tasha, also known as Iggwilv. Creator of Tasha's Hideous Laughter.


EDIT:

Here's what I know: They set up an official WOTC D&D Discord, and there's an audio file there which bears the same name as the components required to cast Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Tasha was once called Iggwilv, and she also has a child with Grazz't. That audio file features a voice cackling.

Why is it not an adventure? Because a couple months back, they mentioned a new book being released this year which would incorporate a new way to determine ability scores for character creation, and not have them so closely tied to races. They already have Frostmaiden coming out, so there's one adventure. Two campaign books, Theros and Wildemount. What's missing is the aforementioned book on character creation. Combine this with the slew of UA from the past year, and its pretty obvious.

Will this include the Class Variant UA? I think so. What makes me believe this? Because D&D Beyond finally busted a move about actually getting it implemented into their system. Remember this was released just a couple weeks before the Eberron book, and they JUST IMPLEMENTED THE DRAGONMARKED RACES AFTER THE BOOK CAME OUT LAST NOVEMBER. So they need to have their character creation software 100% good to go for this book, and they finally busted a move on getting stuff implemented. That tells me they know something very player-option oriented is coming.

EDIT TO THE EDIT:

Right here is where I’m compiling everything I can confirm is in the book.

22 new subclasses, including: Armorer, Fey Wanderer, Circle of Stars, Genie Patron, College Of Creation, Aberrant Mind, Psionic Soul

Some Volo’s races will be reprinted, but with changes: Orcs and Kobolds don’t have stat penalties anymore. Unknown if there will be other changes to them.

Mind Sliver cantrip and the Summon ____ Spirit spells are in, along with at least two new spells bearing Tasha’s name

Magic tattoos are in

New magic items, ranging from Uncommon and Artifact, are in. Some are CLASS SPECIFIC. (Hopefully Monks get some love?)

One item? The Tarokka deck. THE deck. Not another one, THE deck.

New Infusions for the Artificer, and it’s also presented in a way to be Eberron-free.

Sidekick Classes are in, and have been fleshed out a bit. Good for quick references for helpers to the party (Nobody wanted to be a healer?), or as a way to introduce new players in a streamlined fashion.

Aside from the 22 new subclasses, these five are also in as reprints:
Order Domain (Cleric subclass from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica)
Circle of Spores (Druid subclass from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica)
College of Eloquence (Bard subclass from Mythic Odysseys of Theros)
Oath of Glory (Paladin subclass from Mythic Odysseys of Theros)
Bladesinging (Wizard subclass from Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide)

EDIT AGAIN:

Beast Masters now have 3 new options to choose from for their pet. They are called “Primal Beasts”

Your new way of character creation is creating a “Lineage”

[nickl_2000]

Its player options. Xanathar's 2: Electric Xanadu, if you will. (Credit to Tulok the Barbarian for the title)

It has to do with Tasha, also known as Iggwilv. Creator of Tasha's Hideous Laughter.

And what's the reasoning on the tone here? It sounds like you are sure.

[Unoriginal]

Why is that? I'm just curious what you argument is on this.

They're already releasing a new adventure module in September. It's possible it happens, but I don't think they'd release two that close of each other.

Unless if it's another Baldur's Gate tie-in module which is synched with the game's release, I suppose.

[Kyutaru]

Its player options. Xanathar's 2: Electric Xanadu, if you will. (Credit to Tulok the Barbarian for the title)

It has to do with Tasha, also known as Iggwilv. Creator of Tasha's Hideous Laughter.

I thought Xanathar was more like a patch update to the game. Other TTRPGs do the same thing once a year. It includes the most popular Unearthed Arcane stuff and some game rules that should be included in the DMG. The book itself mentions it was "the first major rules expansion to the fifth edition of D&D."

[jaappleton]

I updated my previous post.

[Unoriginal]

I thought Xanathar was more like a patch update to the game. Other TTRPGs do the same thing once a year. It includes the most popular Unearthed Arcane stuff and some game rules that should be included in the DMG. The book itself mentions it was "the first major rules expansion to the fifth edition of D&D."

The Xanathar's was more a DLC than a patch update. Its main purpose is to expend the options available to players and DMs, not correcting what they've done before.

[Millstone85]

When they say "Your first look at the next D&D title comes on August 24!", does this mean we can expect to see more later today?

[Kyutaru]

That tells me they know something very player-option oriented is coming.Sounds good then, but if you're right then we already know a bunch of what's going to be in it. It'd be nice to see a whole book on Class Variants though to see what form the 6th edition should take. Stuff like this is what makes D&D better than codified tabletop games like Warhammer. You don't need everyone using the same rules and the most popular ones win out in representation next edition.

[nickl_2000]

When they say "Your first look at the next D&D title comes on August 24!", does this mean we can expect to see more later today?

I would imagine, a placeholder Amazon sale item isn't really a first look

[jaappleton]

Sounds good then, but if you're right then we already know a bunch of what's going to be in it. It'd be nice to see a whole book on Class Variants though to see what form the 6th edition should take. Stuff like this is what makes D&D better than codified tabletop games like Warhammer. You don't need everyone using the same rules and the most popular ones win out in representation next edition.

I'm quite excited for the book. I want to know what made it in, what didn't, what's changed, what's new. Remember, just because we saw it as UA doesn't mean it went through as-is. We saw Oath of Heroism in UA and got Oath of Glory in Theros, they're quite different.

I'm most excited about the new way of character creation regarding stats. Its something the design team mentioned but never elaborated on. How's that going to work, exactly?

[jaappleton]

Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

Seriously. That's the book.

[Kyutaru]

I'm most excited about the new way of character creation regarding stats. Its something the design team mentioned but never elaborated on. How's that going to work, exactly?
Could be them copying Pathfinder 2E's system. They start with a baseline of 10 across the board and give stat boosts to things depending on class/ancestry/background. Then you get 4 more boosts to apply freely.

[nickl_2000]

Could be them copying Pathfinder 2E's system. They start with a baseline of 10 across the board and give stat boosts to things depending on class/ancestry/background. Then you get 4 more boosts to apply freely.

I don't know, I feel like Pathfinder 2E would be more suited to a D&D 6e than a suppliment to 5e.

[Unoriginal]

Sounds good then, but if you're right then we already know a bunch of what's going to be in it. It'd be nice to see a whole book on Class Variants though to see what form the 6th edition should take.

5e is far from close to being in the "let's see what the next edition will be" stage. Even from a corporate business standpoint pulling the plug on it and having to re-invest money in the creation process of a new edition would be shooting themselves in both hands at once.

I agree with you that we know a bunch of what's going to be in it.


Biggest area of unknown so far is if the book is going to be Planes-themed or not. Quite a few UA had player options tied to planar influence

[Yakk]

Tasha's Hideous Uncontrollable Errata
Not because I expect it to be bad, but because it sounds funny

[jaappleton]

Tasha's Hideous Uncontrollable Errata
Not because I expect it to be bad, but because it sounds funny

Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is the official title.

Seems like they'll be slowly unveiling stuff about the book throughout the day.

September 18-20th, they're doing an online event to showcase it similar to the unveiling of Avernus and Frostmaiden.

Confirmed so far? "Massive rules expansion", and that Sidekicks from Essentials Kit will be in it.

[Unoriginal]

Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.

Seriously. That's the book.

Link?

If it's true I'm deeply disappointed in the name.

Like, the Xanathar's Guide to Everything worked because the Xanathar is a megalomaniac who would make such a statement. Re-using the "Everything" part makes it look like Tasha has no imagination.

Tasha's Cauldron of Plenty or Tasha's Cauldron of Many Things would have been way better, even if you didn't go in the more joke titles

[jaappleton]

Link?

If it's true I'm deeply disappointed in the name.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-new-d-d-book-tashas-cauldron-of-everything.674284/

The wizard Tasha, whose great works include the spell Tasha’s hideous laughter, has gathered bits and bobs of precious lore during her illustrious career as an adventurer. Her enemies wouldn’t want these treasured secrets scattered across the multiverse, so in defiance, she has collected and codified these tidbits for the enrichment of all.

EXPANDED SUBCLASSES. Try out subclass options for every Dungeons & Dragons class, including the artificer, which appears in the book.

MORE CHARACTER OPTIONS. Delve into a collection of new class features and new feats, and customize your character’s origin using straightforward rules for modifying a character’s racial traits.

INTRODUCING GROUP PATRONS. Whether you're part of the same criminal syndicate or working for an ancient dragon, each group patron option comes with its own perks and types of assignments.

SPELLS, ARTIFACTS & MAGIC TATTOOS. Discover more spells, as well as magic tattoos, artifacts, and other magic items for your campaign.

EXPANDED RULES OPTIONS. Try out rules for sidekicks, supernatural environments, natural hazards, and parleying with monsters, and gain guidance on running a session zero.

A PLETHORA OF PUZZLES. Ready to be dropped into any D&D adventure, puzzles of varied difficulty await your adventurers, complete with traps and guidance on using the puzzles in a campaign.
Full of expanded content for players and Dungeon Masters alike, this book is a great addition to the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Baked in you'll find more rule options for all the character classes in the Player's Handbook, including more subclass options. Thrown in for good measure is the artificer class, a master of magical invention.

And this witch's brew wouldn't be complete without a dash of added artifacts, spellbook options, spells for both player characters and monsters, magical tattoos, group patrons, and other tasty goodies.

[Millstone85]

It is also on their main website. (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything)

I didn't imagine someone known for her "hideous laughter" to be this good looking.

[nickl_2000]

https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-new-d-d-book-tashas-cauldron-of-everything.674284/

The wizard Tasha, whose great works include the spell Tasha’s hideous laughter, has gathered bits and bobs of precious lore during her illustrious career as an adventurer. Her enemies wouldn’t want these treasured secrets scattered across the multiverse, so in defiance, she has collected and codified these tidbits for the enrichment of all.

EXPANDED SUBCLASSES. Try out subclass options for every Dungeons & Dragons class, including the artificer, which appears in the book.

MORE CHARACTER OPTIONS. Delve into a collection of new class features and new feats, and customize your character’s origin using straightforward rules for modifying a character’s racial traits.

INTRODUCING GROUP PATRONS. Whether you're part of the same criminal syndicate or working for an ancient dragon, each group patron option comes with its own perks and types of assignments.

SPELLS, ARTIFACTS & MAGIC TATTOOS. Discover more spells, as well as magic tattoos, artifacts, and other magic items for your campaign.

EXPANDED RULES OPTIONS. Try out rules for sidekicks, supernatural environments, natural hazards, and parleying with monsters, and gain guidance on running a session zero.

A PLETHORA OF PUZZLES. Ready to be dropped into any D&D adventure, puzzles of varied difficulty await your adventurers, complete with traps and guidance on using the puzzles in a campaign.
Full of expanded content for players and Dungeon Masters alike, this book is a great addition to the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Baked in you'll find more rule options for all the character classes in the Player's Handbook, including more subclass options. Thrown in for good measure is the artificer class, a master of magical invention.

And this witch's brew wouldn't be complete without a dash of added artifacts, spellbook options, spells for both player characters and monsters, magical tattoos, group patrons, and other tasty goodies.

While the user who posted that is a published for Enworld, I will wait on official sources from WotC (or a sale site posting something). That may be wishful thinking because I feel like that name is awful.

[Kyutaru]

Sidekicks AND puzzles?! I love it already.

Though I'm going to have to look at that monster parley section... that sounds as dangerous as old Diplomacy.

[jaappleton]

While the user who posted that is a published for Enworld, I will wait on official sources from WotC (or a sale site posting something). That may be wishful thinking because I feel like that name is awful.

Don't doubt me.

nickl, you know my username well enough to know that when I post info on unreleased products, its solid. I also had the new Ranger stuff from Class Variants before anyone else, remember?

https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything

[Yakk]

Well, I guess the idea is that the "rules expansion" generic books (the DLC) are called "Everything".

[nickl_2000]

Don't doubt me.

https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything

I wasn't doubting you in particular, just your sources (although you tend to have legit rumors, I tend to be careful when the reference is another forum) :smallwink:

This one, on the other hand, is definitely legit without question.

[jaappleton]

I wasn't doubting you in particular, just your sources (although you tend to have legit rumors, I tend to be careful when the reference is another forum) :smallwink:

This one, on the other hand, is definitely legit without question.

As much as I dislike the other forum (And I do loathe it, believe me. I absolutely despise it, for a variety of reasons), I must acknowledge that Morrus himself is 100000% tapped in to WOTC.

[nickl_2000]

As much as I dislike the other forum (And I do loathe it, believe me. I absolutely despise it, for a variety of reasons), I must acknowledge that Morrus himself is 100000% tapped in to WOTC.

I don't go over there for anything other than the occasional guide. So, I didn't know the source at all to be able to judge.

[Unoriginal]

It is also on their main website. (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything)

I didn't imagine someone known for her "hideous laughter" to be this good looking.

I mean it's just the spell she made. Bigby didn't have particular hands.

Must say I was sure Tasha was a male character before today, though, but I think it was confusing Tasha and Tenser.

[Amnestic]

Well, the content sounds like exactly what I wanted from a new book. Hope it's good.

[jaappleton]

I mean it's just the spell she made. Bigby didn't have particular hands.

Must say I was sure Tasha was a male character before today, though, but I think it was confusing Tasha and Tenser.

Tasha also has Grazz't as her childs father, and has tricked the demon lord into imprisonment more than once.

She's.... Quite, quite powerful.

[Lupine]

Well, I guess the idea is that the "rules expansion" generic books (the DLC) are called "Everything".

I’m down. That way I know to buy the books that have “everything” in their name, and ignore everything else.

I wonder what this books disclaimer will be?

[nickl_2000]

I’m down. That way I know to buy the books that have “everything” in their name, and ignore everything else.

I suppose there is some sort of continuity to that for the future.

[Unoriginal]

Tasha also has Grazz't as her childs father, and has tricked the demon lord into imprisonment more than once.

She's.... Quite, quite powerful.

Is she Iuz's mom?

[jaappleton]

Is she Iuz's mom?

She is indeed.

[jaappleton]

Really there's one thing I want to know about this book.

It provides variant rules for a lot of things, no doubt about that. It features the Class Variant UA. It will also feature things related to class variants which WERE NOT in the UA.

Example: In the UA, you couldn't swap Metamagic. In an interview, Crawford revealed that was supposed to be in the UA. They forgot to include it. So I expect that to be in it.

They also expanded spell lists to cover oversights from previous released. Bards got Slow in the UA, for example.

I have been campaigning since the release of the PHB for this, and I am desperate to know if its in the book:

Did the give Clerics access to the Sunbeam spell?

Of all the info, that's what I want to know first. :smalltongue:

[Millstone85]

I mean it's just the spell she made. Bigby didn't have particular hands.Then I might have been accidentally right. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iggwilv), itself linking to Dragon#359, the character known as Natasha the Dark, Tasha or Iggwilv "is said to have two forms, one of which is that of an old crone (said to be her true form), and the other, a human female of dark beauty".

[jaappleton]

Then I might have been accidentally right. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iggwilv), itself linking to Dragon#359, the character known as Natasha the Dark, Tasha or Iggwilv "is said to have two forms, one of which is that of an old crone (said to be her true form), and the other, a human female of dark beauty".

So... Yennefer from Witcher?

[Unoriginal]

Then I might have been accidentally right. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iggwilv), itself linking to Dragon#359, the character known as Natasha the Dark, Tasha or Iggwilv "is said to have two forms, one of which is that of an old crone (said to be her true form), and the other, a human female of dark beauty".

Interesting. Wonder if they would have made her a Hag if she had appeared in a later edition first.

Then again, the wikipedia article says she was adopted by Baba Yaga...


So... Yennefer from Witcher?

Yennefer only has one form, she just made permanent alterations to it to be beautiful.

A more apt comparison would be the three bog Crones from the Witcher 3

[Millstone85]

So... Yennefer from Witcher?
Yennefer only has one form, she just made permanent alterations to it to be beautiful.

A more apt comparison would be the three bog Crones from the Witcher 3I don't know much about The Witcher (planning to correct that) but that's what they did with Melisandre in Game of Thrones.

[Sam113097]

It looks like we’re getting new subclasses for all 13 classes! I’m excited to see which Unearthed Arcana playtests make the cut!

[Appleheart]

It looks like we’re getting new subclasses for all 13 classes! I’m excited to see which Unearthed Arcana playtests make the cut!

Yeah, with so long since they last published more than one or two, we have quite the backlog to pick from.

My personal biggest hopes are for the Lurker Patron, Path of the Beast, Circle of Wildfire, Circle of Stars, and the Fey Wanderer Conclave.

Looking at the current UA offering, not including the latest Psionic ones, Warlock has 3 subclasses. Paladin, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer, Artificer and Wizard each have 1. Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, Monk, and Cleric each has 2.

Its not entirely unreasonable that all the current ones, plus possibly another batch before then, sees print. Maybe? :)

[Hytheter]

This book seems pretty exciting, I'm looking forward to it.


I didn't imagine someone known for her "hideous laughter" to be this good looking.

I thought the same earlier today when I happened to see some earlier depictions of her (which were a tad more provocative...).

[jaappleton]

Yeah, with so long since they last published more than one or two, we have quite the backlog to pick from.

My personal biggest hopes are for the Lurker Patron, Path of the Beast, Circle of Wildfire, Circle of Stars, and the Fey Wanderer Conclave.

Looking at the current UA offering, not including the latest Psionic ones, Warlock has 3 subclasses. Paladin, Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer, Artificer and Wizard each have 1. Druid, Ranger, Barbarian, Bard, Monk, and Cleric each has 2.

Its not entirely unreasonable that all the current ones, plus possibly another batch before then, sees print. Maybe? :)

Its actually been 4 for Warlock, if you count the first pass at Genie. :smalltongue:

From my gatherings:

Lurker made it, I think. They still have it up on D&D Beyond. Typically, they rip down what gets riddled with negative feedback. They've been doing that a lot recently. Awhile ago, like when Brute Fighter was released, they just left it up for awhile. WOTC now tells them to take down stuff that they know they won't proceed forward with. That's a very good sign for Lurker that its been up for so long.

Stars Druid scored off the charts. People LOVE them some Stars Druid. Rightfully so, I really dig it myself and I'm typically pretty anti-Druid.

Some of the subclasses are tied fairly close to Psionics. I don't think we're going to see them in Tasha's Cauldron. Why? Crawford said in an interview that they scrapped the Psionic Die mechanics, people didn't like it. They discovered that pretty shortly after release. And we've seen nothing new to playtest since then regarding Psionics. If we'd gotten something new to playtest, and it had scored well in the feedback, we'd be likely to see it. But that didn't happen, so I doubt Psionics made it. That's just my summation, nothing concrete there.

EDIT:

GENIE PATRON IS IN.

[Unoriginal]

Which Fighter subclasses do you think made the cut?

Rune Knight seemed to have a nice reception.



Also I feel like at least one of the UA subclasses was re-purposed for a different class.



EDIT:

GENIE PATRON IS IN.

That is a good thing. Any news on what was changed?

[x3n0n]

Lots more info here: https://nerdarchy.com/tashas-cauldron-of-everything-has-well-everything-for-5e-dd/

Roughly in article order:

Armorer
Aberrant mind
Spell versatility
New beast master companions
Monstrous race errata
More "this is your life"-type content
Alternate class features
More psionic subclasses, somewhat "evolved"
New magic items and spells, including Tasha's caustic brew and her otherworldly guise
New spellcasting foci, including "the" Tarokka deck
Sidekicks, including as a suggested simpler PC type
Feats, but no details

[Amnestic]

Lots more info here: https://nerdarchy.com/tashas-cauldron-of-everything-has-well-everything-for-5e-dd/

Roughly in article order:

Armorer
Aberrant mind
Spell versatility
New beast master companions
Monstrous race errata
More "this is your life"-type content
Alternate class features
More psionic subclasses, somewhat "evolved"
New magic items and spells, including Tasha's caustic brew and her otherworldly guise
New spellcasting foci, including "the" Tarokka deck
Sidekicks, including as a suggested simpler PC type
Feats, but no details

From the very end:

"Oh! Are you still here? One last thing I’ll mention is the section on Magical Environments includes Eldritch Storms, magical fruits and magical roads, a Mirror Realm and a Mimic Colony."

I am intrigued.

[Unoriginal]

Whoa, never expected Psionics to make the cut.

[jaappleton]

Whoa, never expected Psionics to make the cut.

I'm honestly shocked.

[Unoriginal]

I'm honestly shocked.

Or should we say... mind blasted?

[Chaosmancer]

From the very end:

"Oh! Are you still here? One last thing I’ll mention is the section on Magical Environments includes Eldritch Storms, magical fruits and magical roads, a Mirror Realm and a Mimic Colony."

I am intrigued.


I missed the mimic colony, that is awesome :D


I am also shocked that Psionics are in (I thought they weren't ready) but there seems to be a lot of stuff in this that I am really interested in, and some stuff I think was potentially never seen before. Like a soul-stealing artifact called the Tarokka Deck. Which just sounds amazing.

[jaappleton]

Or should we say... mind blasted?

I'm not even mad, that's pretty good :smallbiggrin:

[J-H]

I feel a Compulsion to buy.

[micahaphone]

It looks like we’re getting new subclasses for all 13 classes! I’m excited to see which Unearthed Arcana playtests make the cut!

I'm sad that Aberrant Mind Sorc is confirmed to have not made the cut.

Was it overtuned? yes. Could it have been easily pared down? Also yes.

Having free mage armor wasn't thematic and if the domain spells were too much you could just give one spell per level. I still really like the theming and other parts of that subclass, a lot more than the psychic sorc version.

[jaappleton]

I'm sad that Aberrant Mind Sorc is confirmed to have not made the cut.

Was it overtuned? yes. Could it have been easily pared down? Also yes.

Having free mage armor wasn't thematic and if the domain spells were too much you could just give one spell per level. I still really like the theming and other parts of that subclass, a lot more than the psychic sorc version.

Have I got news for you...

"Psionics! The Aberrant Mind is just one of the psionic themed subclasses from UA. Along with a few others, these psionic subclasses use a modifed version of the playtest mechanics, which Crawford described as “evolved."

From the Nerdarchy article linked earlier.

EDIT:

There's a Sidekick CLASS. Could actually be decent for players that can only make it to the session occasionally, and don't want to get too bogged down in mechanics?

Also, they revamped races from Volo's that had penalties. Kobolds no longer have a penalty to STR, and Orcs are without the INT penalty. Swolebold FTW!

[Unoriginal]

magical fruits

Welp, it's Goblin Market time.


Mirror Realm

Oh boy.

[micahaphone]

Have I got news for you...

"Psionics! The Aberrant Mind is just one of the psionic themed subclasses from UA. Along with a few others, these psionic subclasses use a modifed version of the playtest mechanics, which Crawford described as “evolved."

From the Nerdarchy article linked earlier.

Wow! That's great! In a previous UA they said "Psionic Soul, a revised sorcerer subclass that
was previously called the Aberrant Mind" so I was assuming that they were moving past that all. I'm glad to hear they listen to feedback on the UA then!

[Kyutaru]

Rules for the Mirror Realm:

1) Everyone has a goatee.
2) Existing places are the same, just named backwards.
3) Fighters are stronger than Wizards.

[jaappleton]

Wow! That's great! In a previous UA they said "Psionic Soul, a revised sorcerer subclass that
was previously called the Aberrant Mind" so I was assuming that they were moving past that all. I'm glad to hear they listen to feedback on the UA then!

About that....

People said in the feedback for the Psion Wizard that if Psionics were an innate thing, then it should be Sorc. So they put it on the Sorc.

And all the Aberrant Mind fans went, "GIVE ME BACK MY CREEPY TENTACLES!" and they did.

(Seriously, Crawford said that in an interview)

[x3n0n]

Via @CriticalBard Twitter, College of Creation Bard

[Kyutaru]

Via @CriticalBard Twitter, College of Creation Bard

Music creation? Or do we have conjurer bards now?

Or worse... crafters...

[Hael]

Rune Knight seems to have made the cut since they mention tattoos.

[x3n0n]

Music creation? Or do we have conjurer bards now?

Or worse... crafters...

There was already UA for this one, which I think is still live in dndbeyond.
Edit: https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/bard#CollegeofCreationUA


Rune Knight seems to have made the cut since they mention tattoos.

Not sure. There was also a tattoos UA separate from Rune Knight.
Edit: https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/spells-magic-tattoos

[jaappleton]

Class specific magic items are in, ranging from Uncommon to Legendary.

[Unoriginal]

Class specific magic items are in, ranging from Uncommon to Legendary.

Oh boy oh boy.

Do we know any of them? I really want to know what the Monk got.

[jaappleton]

Oh boy oh boy.

Do we know any of them? I really want to know what the Monk got.

Monk was my first thought as well!

Unfortunately, I have nothing additional to offer on that.

[Unoriginal]

Monk was my first thought as well!

Unfortunately, I have nothing additional to offer on that.

More than fair. From where did you get that info, if you don't mind me asking?

[Millstone85]

People said in the feedback for the Psion Wizard that if Psionics were an innate thing, then it should be Sorc. So they put it on the Sorc.Well, it is better than a psionicist with a spellbook, but it is still a poor substitute for an actual class.

Psionics is a latent power within all minds, not just individuals from a particular bloodline or backstory. And the poster child for big-brain-time should obviously be Int-based.

So I expect to be disappointed with this final 5e implementation of psionics. Still curious to see it, though.

[jaappleton]

Armorer Artificer is in.

There’s also “tweaks” to the Artificer class. Very curious...

[TigerT20]

Oh boy oh boy.

Do we know any of them? I really want to know what the Monk got.

I'm more worried about Barbarians. I really hope its not just all big axes, because they could have some interesting utility items.

Magical woad that boosts Unarmoured Defence?

A belt covered with sheep skulls? No idea what it would do, but I'd want it.

A Foldable Chariot, horse and driver sold separately??

Decanter of Endless Mead?

[Unoriginal]

I'm more worried about Barbarians. I really hope its not just all big axes, because they could have some interesting utility items.

Magical woad that boosts Unarmoured Defence?

A belt covered with sheep skulls? No idea what it would do, but I'd want it.

A Foldable Chariot, horse and driver sold separately??

Decanter of Endless Mead?

A Swift Tankard, which let you drink potions as your free item interaction as long as you're in Rage?

[ProsecutorGodot]

It mentions new Spells which is exciting, a lot of the psionic UA spells are quite fun.

I'm hoping the expanded class spell lists made it through along with the additional class feature options.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Hmm, nice. I hope that the options presented are cool and useful. But I doubt I'll buy the book as it might not be too interesting for me (and since I have other ways of getting access to content like this :smallwink:).

Expanded Subclasses: Neat, I guess, though hopefully they balance them correctly.

Character options: Yeah this sounds good, looking forward to seeing more customization features in a published book.

Group Patrons: Don't care. At all.

Spells: I hope they're cool? Maybe? At least? More rituals please??? I'm also hoping there's a good number of them, and some cantrips, too.

Artifacts and Magic Tattoos: Yeah I don't care about this either.

Supernatural environments: Don't care.

Sidekicks: Don't care.

Tools for DMs: Hoping it's good. IDK though :smallbiggrin:

Puzzles: This seems promising (maybe?). They better deliver on the phrase: "ready to be dropped into any D&D adventure" because if they give us puzzles that take a football field of space to work and require three pages of description then I'll really be miffed (and PO'd).

I'm also wishing that the book isn't bogged down with setting-specific drivel, since I don't care much for Tasha or whoever else they might drone on about. Course, this is WotC, so it seems as though they can't really help it.

[micahaphone]

Puzzles: This seems promising (maybe?). They better deliver on the phrase: "ready to be dropped into any D&D adventure" because if they give us puzzles that take a football field of space to work and require three pages of description then I'll really be miffed (and PO'd).


Have you looked at the Traps section of Xanathar, especially the complex traps? If the puzzle section is anything like that (hopefully longer/more content to it), I'll be very happy.


Also, I didn't think Xanathar's Guide had much any setting-specific stuff, but maybe I just glossed over it.

[Naanomi]

Well, it is better than a psionicist with a spellbook, but it is still a poor substitute for an actual class.

Psionics is a latent power within all minds, not just individuals from a particular bloodline or backstory. And the poster child for big-brain-time should obviously be Int-based.

So I expect to be disappointed with this final 5e implementation of psionics. Still curious to see it, though.
I think 2E has INT, WIS, and CON all as factors...

[Kyutaru]

I think 2E has INT, WIS, and CON all as factors...

3E made all six attributes factors. You could be a strength-based psychometabolism specialist. Reminds me of how Avatar treats casting.

[jaappleton]

22 subclasses, plus five reprints from other books (SCAG, GGtR, etc)

Mind Sliver made it in

Armorer is in

According to a Gizmodo article, they showed artwork for the Artillerist. Next to it was artwork for a spell caster, and they said it was for the Psionic Soul Sorcerer. Are both Aberrant Mind AND Psionic Soul in?!

[Kyutaru]

I hope this means a section on how Psionics work too. I'll be quite disappointed if they just say "It's magic".

[Naanomi]

I hope this means a section on how Psionics work too. I'll be quite disappointed if they just say "It's magic".
'it's magic that runs off of your internal battery instead of the external power grid' was 3E's default, and sometimes how 1e/2e handled it (they were... inconsistent with the lore). I'm not great on 4e Lore but 'its far realm magic' seemed to be the default?

[Unoriginal]

'it's magic that runs off of your internal battery instead of the external power grid' was 3E's default, and sometimes how 1e/2e handled it (they were... inconsistent with the lore). I'm not great on 4e Lore but 'its far realm magic' seemed to be the default?

I think 4e had Psionic as its own power source, like Nature was.

[ProsecutorGodot]

22 subclasses, plus five reprints from other books (SCAG, GGtR, etc)
To be clear, is this 22 new with an additional 5 reprints or is it 22, including the reprints?

Either way, that's a lot.

[Unoriginal]

Can't wait for Robilar's Gambits about Everything.


Or Erac's Cousin's Betrayal of Everything.

[jaappleton]

To be clear, is this 22 new with an additional 5 reprints or is it 22, including the reprints?

Either way, that's a lot.

22 new, with an additional five reprints.

And if they reprint Sun Soul AGAIN, they better errata it so the lv11 does half damage on a miss.

[nickl_2000]

To be clear, is this 22 new with an additional 5 reprints or is it 22, including the reprints?

Either way, that's a lot.

Even 17 new subclasses is worth the price of admission for me, especially if they put SCAG material in there. Honestly, I would adore seeing the SCAG cantrips show up in this book and I can just buy this (joined with PhB) on DNDBeyond and not have to worry about SCAG at all.

[MaxWilson]

Can't wait for Robilar's Gambits about Everything.

Or Erac's Cousin's Betrayal of Everything.

Okay, that was pretty funny. :)

[AdAstra]

Seems like a fun time all around. I gotta see how my local game store does pickups.

[Millstone85]

I'm not great on 4e Lore but 'its far realm magic' seemed to be the default?Either that or "it's anti far realm magic".
Some speculate that psionic magic is a force that originates in the Far Realm and came into the universe with the sundering of the Living Gate. Others, including most practitioners of psionic ways, believe that their power is the world's response to the intrusion of the Far Realm, similar to a mortal body's reaction to disease.

[Joe the Rat]

I know folks liked the Hydro alt covers, but for me, this is the first one that really catches my eye. Maybe it's the more art take on the scene. Maybe it's the cameo by Iuz's dad. Maybe it's the fact that it doesn't try to suck all the light out of the world with its obtenerable background.

This one is on my get it list.


Can't wait for Robilar's Gambits about Everything.


Or Erac's Cousin's Betrayal of Everything.
Myrlund Shoots Everything.

[jaappleton]

The Summon ______ Spirit spells from UA are in.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The Summon ______ Spirit spells from UA are in.

But what about Spirit Shroud?

[Fnissalot]

I like this book more and more already!!!

[jaappleton]

But what about Spirit Shroud?

Unknown at this time.

If I hear anything, you know I’ll report back, Godot!

[Kane0]

Hey jaappleton would you be so kind as to keep your initial post updated with all the bits you know made it in? Would be great to have it all on the front page as we learn more!

[ProsecutorGodot]

Unknown at this time.

If I hear anything, you know I’ll report back, Godot!

Your pre-release pre-reveal sneak peaks are always appreciated.

[jaappleton]

The reprinted five subclasses arenas follows:

Order Domain (Cleric subclass from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica)
Circle of Spores (Druid subclass from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica)
College of Eloquence (Bard subclass from Mythic Odysseys of Theros)
Oath of Glory (Paladin subclass from Mythic Odysseys of Theros)
Bladesinging (Wizard subclass from Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide)

Fey Wanderer and Circle of Stars are in.

Your new way of creating a character is called your “Lineage”.

And as I suspected, the Sidekick classes are an excellent way to introduce new players to sort of a “D&D Lite”, with simple mechanics and a less daunting way to start playing than a full class.

EDIT:
Hey Kane0

Done. First page. :smallbiggrin:

[Monster Manuel]

The official blurb from WotC lists "a collection of new class features" as something apart from the new subclasses. I'm guessing that encompasses the new class feature UA, but I haven't seen anything indicating what features actually made it in, or how they would be implemented. Anyone hear anything about what features might have made the cut?

Getting into the weeds a bit, but I also noticed, buried in the end paragraph, a comment about new "spellbook options". First read I thought they meant new spells, but they say "spells for both PCs and Monsters"immediately after it. So, it seems like this is actually some kind of optional spellbook rule. Something that ties into the Order of Scribes subclass, maybe? Or maybe something tied into the psionics rules (a psicrystal spellbook, or something similar)?

[Evaar]

The reprinted five subclasses arenas follows:

Bladesinging

Fey Wanderer

are in.

Your new way of creating a character is called your “Lineage”.


Welp, I'm in. Hopefully they fixed the action economy for Fey Wanderer's extra damage so that it works with dual wielding as clearly was intended but not quite executed.

[Wasp]

From io9:

In Cauldron of Everything, players are given the framework to throw all those mandated traits and benefits out the window and build their own benefits, regardless of the race they want to choose for their character. “We provide a new rules option that allows you to take some of the traits in your character’s race—Elf, Dwarf, Half-Orc, or something else—and modify those traits so that you can better reflect the story you have in mind for your character,” Crawford said of the new process. “We even include in this book a template for creating a lineage for your character that is completely disconnected from any of the race options in the game. It’s basically just us saying ‘fill in the blanks.’”

“This is one of multiple books where we will be demonstrating a shift in how we handle certain things in the game, including the character race option,” Crawford said. “This rules option will give people a major tool in creating a character who is not bound by different species archetypes in the game.”

Hmmm, I wonder how free this is going to be...

[Corran]

This is probably the most anticipated book for me so far. I am especially looking forward to group patrons and to the expanded rules options specifically listed in the description. Genuinely excited.

[MaxWilson]

Apparently Iggwilv is getting a PR makeover:

“Tasha is a person who is unfazed by beings of many sorts—in addition to having consorted with darker beings, she also has consorted with, you know, beings of the upper plains,” Crawford said of how the character will come across in her notes. “Basically, Tasha, in her brilliant curiosity, is untroubled by the various moral variations in the planes of existence. If there is knowledge to be learned and to power to possibly be gained, Tasha is unafraid to face it.”

While Tasha’s personality comes through in these notes, she offers an unfiltered lens on all kinds of things featured, evil or heroic. “I would say Tasha is a wonderful example of a character where if we were going to assign an alignment to her, Tasha is whatever alignment suits her for the day,” Crawford joked. “So I guess in that sense she is true neutral. She is very much her own person, and that comes through in her comments in the book.”

(Source: https://io9.gizmodo.com/with-d-ds-next-rulebook-character-creation-will-never-1844807934)

This seems odd.

Iggwilv is unambiguously selfish and evil and always has been. It's weird that Crawford and apparently WotC are trying to re-imagine her as some sort of fearless visionary or antihero. If Iggwilv were a real person this would be extremely horrifying (like whitewashing a cannibalistic serial killer as a role model for young children) but since she's a fictional character I guess it's more like the people who turned Godzilla from a villain into a hero so that they could make more movies.

Edit: maybe a better analogy would be Fred Saberhagen's Dracula books, which re-imagined Vlad the Impaler as an anti-hero who was wrongfully persecuted by van Helsing and libeled by Bram Stoker. (The best thing about the Dracula Tape (https://www.amazon.com/Dracula-Tape-Saberhagens-Book-ebook/dp/B004UT5ZEI/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=), though, is that even though some of Dracula's arguments are plausible, such as "why would I want to hurt Lucy? That idiot van Helsing killed her by transfusing the wrong blood types!", but he's still an unreliable narrator and in other places one suspects that Dracula is still lying about something. The sequel, The Holmes-Dracula File, plays with this even more by showing most of the scenes from both Dracula's perspective and Watson's perspective, and it's amusing to see what is left out of each account. If I knew that WotC were intending something this sophisticated with Tasha I would be fully in favor of it, but right now it feels like an intended whitewash.)

[Fnissalot]

https://www.inverse.com/gaming/tashas-cauldron-of-everything-release-date-subclasses-lineage-rules/amp

Two new spells named!

"Aside from Tasha's Hideous Laughter, she's credited with the creation of many different spells written in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, an evil tome of necromancy that appears in the book as a magical item. New Tasha spells will also appear, including Tasha’s Caustic Brew and Tasha’s Otherworldly Guise."

[Millstone85]

The reprinted five subclasses arenas follows:

Order Domain (Cleric subclass from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica)
Circle of Spores (Druid subclass from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica)
College of Eloquence (Bard subclass from Mythic Odysseys of Theros)
Oath of Glory (Paladin subclass from Mythic Odysseys of Theros)
Bladesinging (Wizard subclass from Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide)If so, that means no subclass was reprinted, or re-reprinted, from the previous "Everything" book.

[Unoriginal]

If so, that means no subclass was reprinted, or re-reprinted, from the previous "Everything" book.

I mean, that seems pretty logical to me?

They're grouping up the subclasses into non-setting books, not duplicating the already Everything'd content.

[micahaphone]

On Max's point, I don't know the older D&D lore, but I would enjoy a selfish archmage's position to contrast with Mordenkainen's "Balance is supes important guys" thing. I'd love to get the footnotes of "who gives a copper about alignment". I think I read somewhere that she's a rival to mordy?

[jaappleton]

If so, that means no subclass was reprinted, or re-reprinted, from the previous "Everything" book.

PHB, XGtE & TCoE should essentially be all you need access to. You’d be missing some races, especially the MtG races, but it’d be essentially all core D&D content.

Unless I’m missing something glaringly obvious.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Apparently Iggwilv is getting a PR makeover . . .

. . . This seems odd.

Iggwilv is unambiguously selfish and evil and always has been. It's weird that Crawford and apparently WotC are trying to re-imagine her as some sort of fearless visionary or antihero. If Iggwilv were a real person this would be extremely horrifying, but since she's a fictional character I guess it's more like the people who turned Godzilla from a villain into a hero so that they could make more movies.

Haha, interesting note. WotC are obviously no stranger to the playing into public perception, as well as understanding the shifting views of media and gaming (and the role of 'characters' in general). Of course, the less I say regarding potential reasons for this, perhaps the better :smallbiggrin:.

Though, the most innocuous reason for this change might just be writing more in accordance with the general "campy" and more laid-back style that is typical of 5e in general.

[Fnissalot]

https://www.inverse.com/gaming/tashas-cauldron-of-everything-release-date-subclasses-lineage-rules/amp

Two new spells named!

"Aside from Tasha's Hideous Laughter, she's credited with the creation of many different spells written in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, an evil tome of necromancy that appears in the book as a magical item. New Tasha spells will also appear, including Tasha’s Caustic Brew and Tasha’s Otherworldly Guise."

I assume Tasha's caustic brew is acid stream from the spells UA and Tasha's otherworldly guise is otherworldly form from the same UA? Any thoughts?

[jaappleton]

I assume Tasha's caustic brew is acid stream from the spells UA and Tasha's otherworldly guise is otherworldly form from the same UA? Any thoughts?

....hm.

Not bad. I have no inside info on it, but I like the way you think!

[KorvinStarmast]

Stars Druid scored off the charts.
GENIE PATRON IS IN.
Good, on both.
Sadly, I expect bloat to feature otherwise. Most of the UA that was floated for this was rubbish. (I sure wrote a lot of reviews that included the notes "rethink, and this time, rebalance this and remember what a fine job you did on the Ranger in the PHB and whom you still have not fixed")

Expanded Subclasses: Neat, I guess, though hopefully they balance them correctly. Not a chance.

More rituals please?
Yes, please.

Artifacts and Magic Tattoos: Yeah I don't care about this either. Magic Tatoos need to take up an attunement slot. I ofered that feedback in the UA version.

Puzzles: This seems promising (maybe?). The three we playtested were decent, I hope they appreciated the feedback and got more from other groups. There were over a dozen eligible, and all we had time for was three.
No, I am not going to violate the NDA I signed. Don't ask.

I think 2E has INT, WIS, and CON all as factors... As did Original (Eldritch Wizardry) and AD&D 1e.

Can't wait for Robilar's Gambits about Everything, or Erac's Cousin's Betrayal of Everything. *chuckle*

Even 17 new subclasses is worth the price of admission for me, especially if they put SCAG material in there. Honestly, I would adore seeing the SCAG cantrips show up in this book and I can just buy this (joined with PhB) on DNDBeyond and not have to worry about SCAG at all. SCAG hasn't aged all that well.

Apparently Iggwilv is getting a PR makeover Which is a disappointement to me.

“I would say Tasha is a wonderful example of a character where if we were going to assign an alignment to her, Tasha is whatever alignment suits her for the day,” Crawford joked. “So I guess in that sense she is true neutral.
No, Jeremy, it makes her True Chaotic. If you want to take a real risk, drop the two axis alignment model and go back to Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. (Heh, that might be a step too far). But it's easier to DM, IME.
Iggwilv is unambiguously selfish and evil and always has been. Yep.

All that talk about unifying the fan base: hmm, just noise?

[Millstone85]

I mean, that seems pretty logical to me?
PHB, XGtE & TCoE should essentially be all you need access to.Sorry, I meant to say that WotC is doing the right thing.

[Azuresun]

Apparently Iggwilv is getting a PR makeover:

"I am too cool to be bound by your simple codes of morality." is usually shorthand for "Yeah, I'm evil." anyway. :smalltongue:

I think it's just that villains are always more likely to get a sympathetic treatment and have people making excuses for them if they're charismatic and / or sexy. Call it the Sephiroth Principle.

[jaappleton]

Been quite a day with all the info gathering, so if this has been stated, my apologies.

Beast Masters will get access to three Primal Beasts they can choose from for a companion.

[Connington]

Apparently Iggwilv is getting a PR makeover:

[I]
Iggwilv is unambiguously selfish and evil and always has been. It's weird that Crawford and apparently WotC are trying to re-imagine her as some sort of fearless visionary or antihero. If Iggwilv were a real person this would be extremely horrifying (like whitewashing a cannibalistic serial killer as a role model for young children) but since she's a fictional character I guess it's more like the people who turned Godzilla from a villain into a hero so that they could make more movies

The Tasha alias was originally one Iggwilv used for heroic adventuring, so it's not like the character is incapable of behaving heroically for selfish reasons.

Revamping the character as essentially a female Rick Sanchez makes a lot of sense to me, and would be an interesting perspective that matches how a lot of PCs behave.

No, it doesn't fit with existing canon, but that's kind of the point. Long-running characters are re-imagined "in name only" all the time. Sometimes it's really cool (for example Mister Freeze, before and after Batman the Animated Series). Hoping this turns out well, and I'm more amused by speculating as to how they'll fit a Greyhawk character into the Forgotten Realms centric Adventurer's League lore.

[Unoriginal]

The Tasha alias was originally one Iggwilv used for heroic adventuring, so it's not like the character is incapable of behaving heroically for selfish reasons.

Revamping the character as essentially a female Rick Sanchez makes a lot of sense to me

That would make her chaotic evil.

[MaxWilson]

The Tasha alias was originally one Iggwilv used for heroic adventuring, so it's not like the character is incapable of behaving heroically for selfish reasons.

Revamping the character as essentially a female Rick Sanchez makes a lot of sense to me, and would be an interesting perspective that matches how a lot of PCs behave.

You're describing chaotic evil. We call those PCs "murderhobos" for a reason. (And yes, they can be good allies to have, and can even be amusing in a 4th-wall-breaking sort of way, as long as you don't think too deeply about the horrifying things they are willing to casually do.)

[micahaphone]

You're describing chaotic evil. We call those PCs "murderhobos" for a reason. (And yes, they can be good allies to have, and can even be amusing in a 4th-wall-breaking sort of way, as long as you don't think too deeply about the horrifying things they are willing to casually do.)

I'll take "common goals murderhobo" over "I'm the smartest thing ever I must be the arbiter of cosmic neutrality" any day :smalltongue:

[Kyutaru]

You're describing chaotic evil. We call those PCs "murderhobos" for a reason. (And yes, they can be good allies to have, and can even be amusing in a 4th-wall-breaking sort of way, as long as you don't think too deeply about the horrifying things they are willing to casually do.)The first time I ran Sunless Citadel I had the paladin fall in the first 10 minutes.

Meepo's desecrated body will never be found.

[Unoriginal]

I'll take "common goals murderhobo" over "I'm the smartest thing ever I must be the arbiter of cosmic neutrality" any day :smalltongue:

Mordenkainen is a jerk, we know.

[Zevox]

*sees that the Genie Patron Warlock will be in the book, as well as the Artificer for those who don't care about Eberron*

Ooo, yay! :smallbiggrin:

*sees that the Psionic Soul Sorcerer will be in the book*

...oh, goddamn it. :smalleek: :smallfrown:

Guess I'm crossing my fingers that the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife don't come with it, signalling that they might be treating it as something separate and still working on Psionics in some other form. If those are there too though... well, I guess hopes for real, official Psionics in 5E are dead at that point.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Iggwilv is an interesting character and diving deeper into her backstory to add some nuance is great, but I'm not sure how Crawford thinks "amoral sociopath that casually does horrible things" is True Neutral just because sometimes she's not an absolute monster all the time. By that same logic Evil is apparently only achievable by extremely dedicated individuals that are incapable of not kicking puppies on a fundamental level.

Count Strahd von Zarovich isn't Evil because he invited you to dinner that one time and didn't poison the food. Sometimes Acererak takes a break from doing terrible things to instead do some research, so he's probably Neutral, too.

[jaappleton]

*sees that the Genie Patron Warlock will be in the book, as well as the Artificer for those who don't care about Eberron*

Ooo, yay! :smallbiggrin:

*sees that the Psionic Soul Sorcerer will be in the book*

...oh, goddamn it. :smalleek: :smallfrown:

Guess I'm crossing my fingers that the Psychic Warrior and Soulknife don't come with it, signalling that they might be treating it as something separate and still working on Psionics in some other form. If those are there too though... well, I guess hopes for real, official Psionics in 5E are dead at that point.

The design team has said a few times that the inclusion of Psionic subclasses should not signify they aren’t working on a Psionic class.

[Unoriginal]

My best guess is that Tasha's being retconned from "evil witch who sometime does heroic things for selfish reason" to the "is sometime a jerk, sometime helpful, but mostly can't be bothered" kind of true neutral.

Crawford certainly isn't the best at this part of the game/world, though.

[Chaosmancer]

Class specific magic items are in, ranging from Uncommon to Legendary.

Nice!!

That would be a great addition for Druids, Monks and a few others.


The Summon ______ Spirit spells from UA are in.


SWEET!


I assume Tasha's caustic brew is acid stream from the spells UA and Tasha's otherworldly guise is otherworldly form from the same UA? Any thoughts?


I think that may be the case, but I honestly hope it isn't.

Because that was a great sorcerer spell, and sorcerers never get "named" spells, which would make it a wizard exclusive.... again.

[Talij]

So if there are 22 new subclasses, odds are they came from UA (when was the last time we got a new subclass that was NOT UA?). There are currently 24 subclasses on dndbeyond that are UA, so those would be the most likely. Listing them here just to remind people.

Barbarian: Beast and Wild Soul
Bard: Creation and Spirits
Cleric: Twilight and Unity
Druid: Stars and Wildfire
Fighter: Psi Knight and Rune Knight
Monk: Mercy and Astral Self
Paladin: Watchers
Ranger: Fey Wanderer and Swarmkeeper
Rogue: Phantom and Soulknife
Sorcerer: Clockwork Soul and Psionic Soul
Warlock: Genie, Lurker in the Deep, Undead
Wizard: Scribes
Artificer: Armorer

So if the new ones only come from these, then 2 of them have to go. Also note that Spirits Bard and Undead Warlock's UA just came out recently so it's possible those weren't out in time to make the cut. If so, that'd be the 2.

[Kane0]

Okay so assuming our criticism of UA has been taken on board i’m pretty stoked



So if the new ones only come from these, then 2 of them have to go. Also note that Spirits Bard and Undead Warlock's UA just came out recently so it's possible those weren't out in time to make the cut. If so, that'd be the 2.

My vote would be to ditch clockwork sorc and fey wanderer ranger. Maybe one of the warlocks depending on how much they have changed from UA. Wasnt really thrilled about armorer artificer either.

[micahaphone]

(on Tasha's caustic brew = Acid Stream)

Nice!!

I think that may be the case, but I honestly hope it isn't.

Because that was a great sorcerer spell, and sorcerers never get "named" spells, which would make it a wizard exclusive.... again.

silly goose, you think that Sorcerers should ever get anything? They get scraps and should be damn happy to get that!

A poster on reddit was saying "I can't wait for Sorcerers to not have Bloodline Spells in this" which oof if that ain't the UA trend. Per Xanathar's, will they get 1 domain spell, or will it be a storm sorcerer situation with 0?



And probably too early to call it a trend, but it's interesting that the ".... Everything" titles have been for evil characters. But again, only 2 isn't a trend yet. Any lore grognards want to suggest a 3rd evil famous figure for the next guide to everything?

[Unoriginal]

Any lore grognards want to suggest a 3rd evil famous figure for the next guide to everything?

As stated earlier:

Erac's Cousin's Betrayal of Everything.

[jaappleton]

So if there are 22 new subclasses, odds are they came from UA (when was the last time we got a new subclass that was NOT UA?). There are currently 24 subclasses on dndbeyond that are UA, so those would be the most likely. Listing them here just to remind people.

Barbarian: Beast and Wild Soul
Bard: Creation and Spirits
Cleric: Twilight and Unity
Druid: Stars and Wildfire
Fighter: Psi Knight and Rune Knight
Monk: Mercy and Astral Self
Paladin: Watchers
Ranger: Fey Wanderer and Swarmkeeper
Rogue: Phantom and Soulknife
Sorcerer: Clockwork Soul and Psionic Soul
Warlock: Genie, Lurker in the Deep, Undead
Wizard: Scribes
Artificer: Armorer

So if the new ones only come from these, then 2 of them have to go. Also note that Spirits Bard and Undead Warlock's UA just came out recently so it's possible those weren't out in time to make the cut. If so, that'd be the 2.

Aberrant Mind Sorc is in. I assume Clockwork is out, unless they put in THREE Sorc subclasses.

I know Scribes was hated.

Undead and Spirits I think were added a bit too late to be able to be included.

Could be no Wizard subclasses.... I mean, they have a LOT already. I wouldn’t be upset if we didn’t get a new one for Wizard. Because Scribes was..... not great.

[Talij]

https://youtu.be/PzFK7LVPoE0
D&D YouTube announcement plus Genie patron highlight.

Edit: oh there's a bunch of these on their channel.

[jaappleton]

https://youtu.be/PzFK7LVPoE0
D&D YouTube announcement plus Genie patron highlight.

Edit: oh there's a bunch of these on their channel.

.....What do you think my sources have been? :smalltongue:

[Zevox]

The design team has said a few times that the inclusion of Psionic subclasses should not signify they aren’t working on a Psionic class.
Sure, when people bugged them about whether things like the "School of Psionics" Wizard subclass was supposed to be the Psion. But we haven't seen anything of any other kind of Psionics, and they've officially dropped the Mystic - and personally I'd fully expect Psychic Warior and Soulknife to be part of any final 5E version of Psionics, since they're kind of iconic to anyone familiar with the 3.5 version. So if it turns out that we're getting a finished product on them, plus a caster "Psionic" subclass in this Sorcerer, that feels an awful lot like them deciding that these subclasses are just what 5E Psionics are going to be to me.

I'll be happy to be wrong if we do later get a proper Psion class, but I can't help fearing that we won't at this point.

[jaappleton]

Sure, when people bugged them about whether things like the "School of Psionics" Wizard subclass was supposed to be the Psion. But we haven't seen anything of any other kind of Psionics, and they've officially dropped the Mystic - and personally I'd fully expect Psychic Warior and Soulknife to be part of any final 5E version of Psionics, since they're kind of iconic to anyone familiar with the 3.5 version. So if it turns out that we're getting a finished product on them, plus a caster "Psionic" subclass in this Sorcerer, that feels an awful lot like them deciding that these subclasses are just what 5E Psionics are going to be to me.

I'll be happy to be wrong if we do later get a proper Psion class, but I can't help fearing that we won't at this point.

I absolutely get where you’re coming from here. And as, to a point, agree.

However, I ask you to look at it from a business model standpoint:

Why do they include player subclasses with books like Ravnica or Theros? Are they for the DM for the campaign setting? Nope. They’re to try to entice players to pick up those books.

So, with that in mind, I believe that a full Psionics class will release with a campaign setting like Eberron and Artificer were. What campaign setting? No comment, as it’s needed for a couple.

But I think you get where I’m coming from here.

Now, full disclosure: Not defending WOTC, or their mindset or logic. The above is just my thoughts on it.

But they are a business.... They can make money off a new class. So I think it’s safe to say, they’re gonna try to make a new Psionic class. IMO they should do two: One d10 and one d6. One mage style, one for the more martial oriented stuff. But that’s a whole different topic.

[GlenSmash!]

PHB, XGtE & TCoE should essentially be all you need access to. You’d be missing some races, especially the MtG races, but it’d be essentially all core D&D content.

Unless I’m missing something glaringly obvious.

Nothing besides the SCAG cantrips I think. But I might even be wrong about those.

[jaappleton]

Nothing besides the SCAG cantrips I think. But I might even be wrong about those.

Haven’t seen them mentioned but if they reprint the Bladesinger, (Which they are doing), I think there’s a decent chance the SCAG cantrips might be reprinted as well.

It’s a chance. No inside knowledge on that.

[MaxWilson]

Nothing besides the SCAG cantrips I think. But I might even be wrong about those.

You'd also be missing Long Death monks, Undyng Warlocks, Battleragers, and Crown Paladins.

[Kyutaru]

Why do they include player subclasses with books like Ravnica or Theros? Are they for the DM for the campaign setting? Nope. They’re to try to entice players to pick up those books.
I mean the DM has to allow it too. If it's world-specific then no dice.

I keep wishing they will bring Dragonlance saga back. It would have player options too like the Kender race and the Wizards of High Sorcery.

[jaappleton]

You'd also be missing Long Death monks, Undyng Warlocks, Battleragers, and Crown Paladins.

I read “Long Death Monks” and then a bunch of gibberish nobody likes :smallbiggrin:

[GlenSmash!]

You'd also be missing Long Death monks, Undyng Warlocks, Battleragers, and Crown Paladins.

Well I wouldn't exactly say I would be missing them, Max
https://i.chzbgr.com/original/6710942464/hC070CDD2/cheezburger-image-6710942464

Partially kidding. I do think Long Death Monks and Crown Paladins are underrated.

[P. G. Macer]

You'd also be missing Long Death monks, Undyng Warlocks, Battleragers, and Crown Paladins.

And also Arcana Clerics.


I am super stoked for this book, although I’m regretting my getting GGtR a little now that the subclasses are going to be reprinted. But that’s okay because my precious wildfire druid is going to be official (please don’t screw this up and nerf it beyond recognition WotC).

[MaxWilson]

Well I wouldn't exactly say I would be missing them, Max
https://i.chzbgr.com/original/6710942464/hC070CDD2/cheezburger-image-6710942464

Partially kidding. I do think Long Death Monks and Crown Paladins are underrated.

Heh. I just noticed that I didn't even mention the Purple Dragon Knight, despite kind of liking them.

[Talij]

Aberrant Mind Sorc is in. I assume Clockwork is out, unless they put in THREE Sorc subclasses.

I know Scribes was hated.

Undead and Spirits I think were added a bit too late to be able to be included.

Could be no Wizard subclasses.... I mean, they have a LOT already. I wouldn’t be upset if we didn’t get a new one for Wizard. Because Scribes was..... not great.

If there are 22 new + 5 reprint (27 total), at least 1 classes will have 3 subclasses in the book. Artificer unlikely to get more than 1 new (though it gets a whole class reprinting), so likely 2 will have 3 of them. I'd bet those will ones with reprints (as I agree it'd be odd to have any with 3 brand new ones). If the 5 reprints are what you say, than cleric and druid are the two likely to have 3 new ones.

I think it's unlikely that Wizard wouldn't get ANYTHING new. Perhaps a severely reworked version of scribes is in.

If Undead & Spirits are out (plus Aberrent Mind in for Clockwork Soul), then either everything else on dndbeyond is in or they added something else out of left field.

[Zevox]

I absolutely get where you’re coming from here. And as, to a point, agree.

However, I ask you to look at it from a business model standpoint:

Why do they include player subclasses with books like Ravnica or Theros? Are they for the DM for the campaign setting? Nope. They’re to try to entice players to pick up those books.

So, with that in mind, I believe that a full Psionics class will release with a campaign setting like Eberron and Artificer were. What campaign setting? No comment, as it’s needed for a couple.

But I think you get where I’m coming from here.

Now, full disclosure: Not defending WOTC, or their mindset or logic. The above is just my thoughts on it.

But they are a business.... They can make money off a new class. So I think it’s safe to say, they’re gonna try to make a new Psionic class. IMO they should do two: One d10 and one d6. One mage style, one for the more martial oriented stuff. But that’s a whole different topic.
Well, let's just say that you have more faith in them doing a setting book for a setting that requires than Psionics than I. Though to be fair, I can only think of one that I've been told does, Dark Sun, which to my knowledge has been dead as far as official support goes since 2E? Going off secondhand info here since I'm not actually familiar with too many settings. I started playing in 3.5, so I largely know the Realms and a bit about Eberron and Greyhawk.

[Kyutaru]

Well, let's just say that you have more faith in them doing a setting book for a setting that requires than Psionics than I. Though to be fair, I can only think of one that I've been told does, Dark Sun, which to my knowledge has been dead as far as official support goes since 2E? Going off secondhand info here since I'm not actually familiar with too many settings. I started playing in 3.5, so I largely know the Realms and a bit about Eberron and Greyhawk.

That's about right. Dark Sun is a post apocalypse setting where arcane magic is basically hated for ruining the world. Psionics are everywhere and wizards are outlaws.

Dragonlance is another fun setting with limited support. Wizards had THREE gods of magic to get their powers from instead of only one and it was based on alignment which one you followed. Paladins similar had different orders and Clerics different faiths. This was important because it split up magic by alignment and you couldn't learn certain schools unless you were part of that order. Dragonlances themselves were also obscenely powerful, capable of dealing a fighter's HP in damage to dragons, while other entities like the death knights and the draconians were by modern D&D standards walking death traps.

[Millstone85]

Though to be fair, I can only think of one that I've been told does, Dark Sun, which to my knowledge has been dead as far as official support goes since 2E?I don't know about 3e, but 4e had only three setting books: Forgotten Realms, Eberron... and Dark Sun.

[Connington]

reprint the Arcana Domain you cowards

[Kuu Lightwing]

I don't know about 3e, but 4e had only three setting books: Forgotten Realms, Eberron... and Dark Sun.

Two of those have psionics as a part of the setting, correct?
And no there wasn't an official Dark Sun supplement for 3e or 3.5e, although there were two iterations of psionic rules (3.5e one was much better)

I guess at this point I'm not as interested in Psionics as when they were experimenting with Mystic, but it's kinda sad what they are trying to do with it. "You cast normal spells but without components and there's tentacles everywhere" feels somewhat pointless to have as a mechanic. But then again, I always was for more different and distinct mechanics in the game rather than minimizing mechanical differences between abilities or classes.

[Zevox]

That's about right. Dark Sun is a post apocalypse setting where arcane magic is basically hated for ruining the world. Psionics are everywhere and wizards are outlaws.

Dragonlance is another fun setting with limited support. Wizards had THREE gods of magic to get their powers from instead of only one and it was based on alignment which one you followed. Paladins similar had different orders and Clerics different faiths. This was important because it split up magic by alignment and you couldn't learn certain schools unless you were part of that order. Dragonlances themselves were also obscenely powerful, capable of dealing a fighter's HP in damage to dragons, while other entities like the death knights and the draconians were by modern D&D standards walking death traps.
Ah, right, I forgot about Dragonlance, but I am familiar with that one due to having read a few of its novels. Never had any D&D game books for it though.


I don't know about 3e, but 4e had only three setting books: Forgotten Realms, Eberron... and Dark Sun.
Dark Sun had a 4e setting book? Wow. I had no idea - I skipped 4e entirely. I'm very surprised to hear that. It does give me some more hope that maybe we will see it get a 5E book that comes with a real Psion class though, so, thank you for mentioning that.

[kobo1d]

reprint the Arcana Domain you cowards

If they were short on Clerics to print, like they were for Wizards, they would've. Bladesinger is likely only in there because all the Wizard UA this round flopped, and Bladesinger is actually in a great place mechanically.

Arcana is now going to be one of the few things left in SCAG that's still kosher by 2020 5E design standards, so we'll likely see it back eventually. 2023 Everything book? Imagine if Unity and Twilight both got bad feedback, then a third Cleric UA was written to replace them and *also* got mediocre feedback. That's basically been this last year with Onomancy, Psionic wizard, and Scribe.


Ah, right, I forgot about Dragonlance, but I am familiar with that one due to having read a few of its novels. Never had any D&D game books for it though.

3.5 had the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book

[TrueAlphaGamer]

And probably too early to call it a trend, but it's interesting that the ".... Everything" titles have been for evil characters. But again, only 2 isn't a trend yet. Any lore grognards want to suggest a 3rd evil famous figure for the next guide to everything?

Here's hoping for 'Raistlin's Writings on Everything Arcane' :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Here's hoping for 'Raistlin's Writings on Everything Arcane' :smallbiggrin:

Or maybe "I Was Just Holding It For You: Tasslehoff's Pouch of Everything."

[Zevox]

3.5 had the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book
Sure, I was just saying I never had the game book(s), just the novels.

[MrStabby]

Which Fighter subclasses do you think made the cut?

Rune Knight seemed to have a nice reception.



Also I feel like at least one of the UA subclasses was re-purposed for a different class.



That is a good thing. Any news on what was changed?

I didn't like the rune knight at first, but gradually came round to it and now really like it. I think it has a kind of broad theme that would fit in so many places nicely. It would be good it came by.


About that....

People said in the feedback for the Psion Wizard that if Psionics were an innate thing, then it should be Sorc. So they put it on the Sorc.

And all the Aberrant Mind fans went, "GIVE ME BACK MY CREEPY TENTACLES!" and they did.

(Seriously, Crawford said that in an interview)

Aberrant mind... Somewhat torn as this feels like it s a bit of a setting specific one - some games I might allow it, others not - purely from a flavour side. On the power side it was pretty overdone, but would be good to see how they responded to feedback and toned it down.





Well, it is better than a psionicist with a spellbook, but it is still a poor substitute for an actual class.

Psionics is a latent power within all minds, not just individuals from a particular bloodline or backstory. And the poster child for big-brain-time should obviously be Int-based.

So I expect to be disappointed with this final 5e implementation of psionics. Still curious to see it, though.

I would love more int based classes, but I really really hope that they bring out something a bit more... classical fantasy in the Int department first. Artificer is great and all, but not my style of character and I would love something more common fantasy than psionics first.





Have you looked at the Traps section of Xanathar, especially the complex traps? If the puzzle section is anything like that (hopefully longer/more content to it), I'll be very happy.


Also, I didn't think Xanathar's Guide had much any setting-specific stuff, but maybe I just glossed over it.

Best UA ever. Best bit of Xanathar's. Surprisingly brilliant.




The Summon ______ Spirit spells from UA are in.

I have mixed feelings about this. Firstly, they are pretty much downgrades of things like conjure animals - so they probably won't see play if you can take the comptetition... on the other hand they might make it to clsses that don't really have this and they are a much less annoying version of summoning... which I appreciate.





The official blurb from WotC lists "a collection of new class features" as something apart from the new subclasses. I'm guessing that encompasses the new class feature UA, but I haven't seen anything indicating what features actually made it in, or how they would be implemented. Anyone hear anything about what features might have made the cut?

Getting into the weeds a bit, but I also noticed, buried in the end paragraph, a comment about new "spellbook options". First read I thought they meant new spells, but they say "spells for both PCs and Monsters"immediately after it. So, it seems like this is actually some kind of optional spellbook rule. Something that ties into the Order of Scribes subclass, maybe? Or maybe something tied into the psionics rules (a psicrystal spellbook, or something similar)?

I would love rules for turning other clases into spellbook classes. It doesn't seem out of keeping for a cleric, a paladin or some bards. If it takes a switch of casting stat to Int then I would be all in on that.





The design team has said a few times that the inclusion of Psionic subclasses should not signify they aren’t working on a Psionic class.

I do think that some of the psionic stuff was them testing mechanics and looking for feedback on those rather than being final products. If the mechanics are well recieved then I could see them being refluffed.





Okay so assuming our criticism of UA has been taken on board i’m pretty stoked



My vote would be to ditch clockwork sorc and fey wanderer ranger. Maybe one of the warlocks depending on how much they have changed from UA. Wasnt really thrilled about armorer artificer either.

I really liked the clockwork soul - it was a bit on the strong side but had access to so many of the things that a) seem thematic and b) lead to me not playing sorcerers becuse I like them so much. I would much prefer clockwork to aberrent mind.

Likewise the few wanderer ranger. One of the coolest subclasses about and finally something that makes it less painful to use two weapon fighting. Such a good confluence of mechanics and flavour that I really hope it makes the cut.



Aberrant Mind Sorc is in. I assume Clockwork is out, unless they put in THREE Sorc subclasses.

I know Scribes was hated.

Undead and Spirits I think were added a bit too late to be able to be included.

Could be no Wizard subclasses.... I mean, they have a LOT already. I wouldn’t be upset if we didn’t get a new one for Wizard. Because Scribes was..... not great.

So scribes felt like garbage, but I wouldn't mind it being recycled rather than ditched. The idea of having a wizard whose distinguishing feature is that they like books and writing... didn't feel that flavoursome. Smack that theme on an artificer though, or a class where it actually makes a difference and I think there is a place for the theme.






Haven’t seen them mentioned but if they reprint the Bladesinger, (Which they are doing), I think there’s a decent chance the SCAG cantrips might be reprinted as well.

It’s a chance. No inside knowledge on that.

I hope not. At present the AL style PHB+1 requiressome genuine tough choices and these cantrips do contribute to that.






I am a bit worried about the prospect of new spells - I mean I love the idea (although so many shown in UA have been bland and generally not great additions) but I can see this being the hardest thing to keep a lid on for power perspectives. If the spells are good enough to be taken by a character then it is highly likely that they will be pushing the power curve a bit... especially for classes that don't really need the boost.

I wouldn't mind "alternate forms" of spells, so you would have the spell do something different but it would replace an option rather than add a new one. Or different spell lists as an alternate class feature (so you could select an "arctic" list for your class rather than a "bard" list for example), but that getting into wishful thinking now...

[T.G. Oskar]

PHB, XGtE & TCoE should essentially be all you need access to. You’d be missing some races, especially the MtG races, but it’d be essentially all core D&D content.

Unless I’m missing something glaringly obvious.

Umm...Battlerager Barbarian, Arcana Domain Cleric, Monk of the Long Death, Oath of the Crown Paladin, the Undying Patron and, most importantly, the ever-ubiquitous Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade, Lightning Lure and Sword Burst cantrips?

XGtE only reprinted Sun Soul Monk, Mastermind and Swashbuckler.

That said: pretty excited to see another crunchy splat on its way. If the Class Options UA is in, even more so - it was chock-full of great options, including new Fighting Styles and Battlemaster Maneuvers which are desperately needed. The idea of reworking racial stat bonuses as Lineages is...largely irrelevant (I like the challenge of having to play a race optimized for its ability score bonuses), but I can understand its worth - that said, it's not like the PF2e Ancestries and Heritages bit, from what I've heard. Then again, I can't really speak to the source that heard of it. Pretty excited about the new feats, and it's great that they decided to do reprints of what's basically all the ancillary content of the game (that way, I don't have to buy GGtR just for the Order domain and the Circle of Spores, or Theros just for the subclasses - though their Piety system and the Heroic Backgrounds of Wildemount are just great).

[MaxWilson]

Umm...Battlerager Barbarian, Arcana Domain Cleric, Monk of the Long Death, Oath of the Crown Paladin, the Undying Patron and, most importantly, the ever-ubiquitous Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade, Lightning Lure and Sword Burst cantrips?

XGtE only reprinted Sun Soul Monk, Mastermind and Swashbuckler.

Also the XGtE Swashbuckler is strictly worse than the SCAG Swashbuckler, in particular worse at archery.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Also the XGtE Swashbuckler is strictly worse than the SCAG Swashbuckler, in particular worse at archery.

This is the first time I heard they were different. I had to crack open both to see it. It's really not too harsh, but I also understand why the nerf feels needlessly frustrating and stifling to players. I don't think I'll ever demand the XGtE version over SCAG in my games, at least.

Are there any other reprint nerfs like this, or is Swashbuckler an anomaly?

[MaxWilson]

This is the first time I heard they were different. I had to crack open both to see it. It's really not too harsh, but I also understand why the nerf feels needlessly frustrating and stifling to players. I don't think I'll ever demand the XGtE version over SCAG in my games, at least.

Are there any other reprint nerfs like this, or is Swashbuckler an anomaly?

Anomaly. I know of no other cases of actual rules changes in the reprint, just minor rewordings.

[Naanomi]

So scribes felt like garbage, but I wouldn't mind it being recycled rather than ditched. The idea of having a wizard whose distinguishing feature is that they like books and writing... didn't feel that flavoursome. Smack that theme on an artificer though, or a class where it actually makes a difference and I think there is a place for the theme.
Seems unlikely as an artificer option, since it started there and was rejected *before* making a round as a wizard subclass. 2e has 'school of Geometry' wizards that had a somewhat similar feel to Scribe Wizards

[Luccan]

I thought the big problem with the Scribe was mostly that they were repackaging elements people had already rejected from other wizards. Namely switching your damage types at will

[Hael]

I thought the big problem with the Scribe was mostly that they were repackaging elements people had already rejected from other wizards. Namely switching your damage types at will

Combination of things. The lore was a bit hockey, the damage switching leads to hilariously broken combos when multiclassing, some of the other features are uninspired. The kit didn’t really synergize with itself in any interesting way and was kinda random.

[Chaosmancer]

(on Tasha's caustic brew = Acid Stream)


silly goose, you think that Sorcerers should ever get anything? They get scraps and should be damn happy to get that!

A poster on reddit was saying "I can't wait for Sorcerers to not have Bloodline Spells in this" which oof if that ain't the UA trend. Per Xanathar's, will they get 1 domain spell, or will it be a storm sorcerer situation with 0?

Yeah, I think that is almost a legal requirement at this point :(



I didn't like the rune knight at first, but gradually came round to it and now really like it. I think it has a kind of broad theme that would fit in so many places nicely. It would be good it came by.

I agree, it seemed a little too specific at first, but it opens the door to some cool ideas and it actually played pretty decently (though the only person I saw play it hoarded his abilities and almost never used them)



I have mixed feelings about this. Firstly, they are pretty much downgrades of things like conjure animals - so they probably won't see play if you can take the comptetition... on the other hand they might make it to clsses that don't really have this and they are a much less annoying version of summoning... which I appreciate.

Really?

I mean, I guess if you want multiple creatures on the field, Conjure is better, but some of those summons were amazing. Like the Slaad (hate that is was a slaad) that regenerated and shut down healing. Or those bloody OP angels.

I'd be far more willing to summon a single, more powerful entity, than summon eight wolves. Even if eight attacks is superior.

[micahaphone]

Also as a DM I'd be totally okay with my players having more options to summon 1 cooler creature rather than a swarm of animals. Less battlefield clutter, less to manage, I personally think it feels more cinematic.

[Zevox]

I thought the big problem with the Scribe was mostly that they were repackaging elements people had already rejected from other wizards. Namely switching your damage types at will
That's a substantial part of the criticisms of it, yeah. Personally I also thought that the flavor was extremely weak and uninspired. "More bookish Wizard" is about as bland an idea as the Champion Fighter, and unlike that not a staple of the game that just kind of has to be there.

[Hytheter]

I think that may be the case, but I honestly hope it isn't.

Because that was a great sorcerer spell, and sorcerers never get "named" spells, which would make it a wizard exclusive.... again.

Not necessarily. Sorcerers get a few named spells: Aganazzar's Scorcher, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, Snilloc's Snowball Swarm, Melf's Minute Meteors and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting. So it's not out of the question.

[MrStabby]

Seems unlikely as an artificer option, since it started there and was rejected *before* making a round as a wizard subclass. 2e has 'school of Geometry' wizards that had a somewhat similar feel to Scribe Wizards

I thought thematically it worked as an artifier, it just needed some mechanical refinement. I thought it was really valuable there as it let artificer slot in to a non-magitech setting a bit better.




I thought the big problem with the Scribe was mostly that they were repackaging elements people had already rejected from other wizards. Namely switching your damage types at will

Yeah, for some reason that keeps coming back as an ability. Its powerful but not particularly fun and I just dont feel it adds to the flavour of a class at all.



Yeah, I think that is almost a legal requirement at this point :(




I agree, it seemed a little too specific at first, but it opens the door to some cool ideas and it actually played pretty decently (though the only person I saw play it hoarded his abilities and almost never used them)




Really?

I mean, I guess if you want multiple creatures on the field, Conjure is better, but some of those summons were amazing. Like the Slaad (hate that is was a slaad) that regenerated and shut down healing. Or those bloody OP angels.

I'd be far more willing to summon a single, more powerful entity, than summon eight wolves. Even if eight attacks is superior.

Well that's cool.

Around me there seems to be a preference for doing what is mechanically best for a character and a player that selects a class and abilities that can produce lots of summons, will tend to do so because the want a lot of summons.

Anything that encourages players to have fewer other creatures on the table is a good thing in my book though.

[Dork_Forge]

Also the XGtE Swashbuckler is strictly worse than the SCAG Swashbuckler, in particular worse at archery.

You're referring to the inclusion of 'and you don't have disadvantage' in the XGTE printing right? Isn't that more of a rules clarification with the main Sneak Attack text rather than a nerf of the subclass?

[cutlery]

I'm hoping for a witch archetype - whatever the warlock is now it isn't that, and the name is now wasted. I don't know which class chassis, but wizard makes sense.

I'd also like to see more int casting in general, either class variants (put int warlock in a stat block in an official book, please!), or a full int-based arcane paladin/ranger. That latter bit won't happen because the artificer is happening; but the artificer looks like it breaks the "half casters get no cantrips" rule; going to d8 hit die and losing both extra attack and a fighting style in the trade. That's good, I guess.

Intellect has been shafted in 5e; the skills are weak, the multiclassing options are few, and it is even a dump stat for some class archetype builds that use it as a casting stat.

[thorr-kan]

Or maybe "I Was Just Holding It For You: Tasslehoff's Pouch of Everything."
A WotC pdf-only resource for trinkets. Pages and pages of tables and tables of trinkets and trink...THAT'S AN ARTIFACT!

(ETA: I'd probably buy it...)

[micahaphone]

I'm hoping for a witch archetype - whatever the warlock is now it isn't that, and the name is now wasted. I don't know which class chassis, but wizard makes sense.

I'd also like to see more int casting in general, either class variants (put int warlock in a stat block in an official book, please!), or a full int-based arcane paladin/ranger. That latter bit won't happen because the artificer is happening; but the artificer looks like it breaks the "half casters get no cantrips" rule; going to d8 hit die and losing both extra attack and a fighting style in the trade. That's good, I guess.

Intellect has been shafted in 5e; the skills are weak, the multiclassing options are few, and it is even a dump stat for some class archetype builds that use it as a casting stat.

have you considered a land druid as a witch? grab a biome that fits your character idea or just swamp as a good general witch.

I do agree about int being disregarded this edition. I'd love even to see rules making perception vs investigation more defined so you can't be a wis based detective necessarily.

[KorvinStarmast]

Meepo's desecrated body will never be found. The little white dragon ate Meepo in our recently completed 5e take on that adventure.
Why do they include player subclasses with books like Ravnica or Theros? Are they for the DM for the campaign setting? Nope. They’re to try to entice players to pick up those books.
Aye.

So, with that in mind, I believe that a full Psionics class will release with a campaign setting A little love for Darksun would be nice.

Dark Sun is a post apocalypse setting where arcane magic is basically hated for ruining the world. Psionics are everywhere and wizards are outlaws. Yeah, it's a neat premise.

Dragonlance is another fun setting with limited support. Gag me with a snow shovel. :smallyuk:


This was important because it split up magic by alignment and you couldn't learn certain schools unless you were part of that order. We don't need alignment making the game more complex. It is already a bit of a trick to get it right at a given table. I find that mechanically, the above is not good.
reprint the Arcana Domain you cowards Yes, please.

3.5 had the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book Let it lie there, in perpetuity. I won't forget to put roses on its grave. (My other inclination I won't mention)

Or maybe "I Was Just Holding It For You: Tasslehoff's Pouch of Everything." Subtitled: "Burn This Book" :smallcool: (Oblique Abbie Hoffman reference)

Also as a DM I'd be totally okay with my players having more options to summon 1 cooler creature rather than a swarm of animals. Less battlefield clutter, less to manage No disagreement there. I wish the "at higher level" animal summons allowed for fewer beasts but amped up CR ... sigh.

[Segev]

I like how PF1 handled racial options, as alternate features. I didn't like how they made them use "build points" and had some races have higher point values than others with no real way to balance one against another other than to say "all of the PCs should have the same value, and then you should adjust the whole party's encounter level."

My fear, from how this 5e version of it is being pushed, is that we'll see the actual race cease to have any meaning beyond a label. I hope that's wrong. I don't want to essentially have your race be just a "skin" or a "look" pasted over whatever racial abilities you happen to want. I want the choice to play an elf vs. a dwarf vs. a human to mechanically matter.

My hope is that this will have a slew of new alternate racial features for each race, but that the choice of which race you pick will determine your menu to pick from.


Also, I have never been thrilled with the attempts to shoehorn psionics in as magic subclasses. I actually think the psychic powers for non-spellcaster subclasses worked better.

[AdAstra]

I like how PF1 handled racial options, as alternate features. I didn't like how they made them use "build points" and had some races have higher point values than others with no real way to balance one against another other than to say "all of the PCs should have the same value, and then you should adjust the whole party's encounter level."

My fear, from how this 5e version of it is being pushed, is that we'll see the actual race cease to have any meaning beyond a label. I hope that's wrong. I don't want to essentially have your race be just a "skin" or a "look" pasted over whatever racial abilities you happen to want. I want the choice to play an elf vs. a dwarf vs. a human to mechanically matter.

My hope is that this will have a slew of new alternate racial features for each race, but that the choice of which race you pick will determine your menu to pick from.


Also, I have never been thrilled with the attempts to shoehorn psionics in as magic subclasses. I actually think the psychic powers for non-spellcaster subclasses worked better.

I think perhaps a good way of doing this might be to mostly replace Races with Backgrounds, but also design Race-specific Backgrounds or background variants. So people who want to specifically be a Dwarf can have that, and have specific mechanical effects that derive from that, but a person playing a Dwarf can still switch that out with something else should they choose. So playing an Elf might allow you to pick the Elven Mage Guard background, or the Elven Wayfinder background, but if you don't think that those fit your character you can pick a more generic background, like Soldier or Scholar.

Obviously things like speed and poison resistance are probably still going to be baked into the races, so those will need to be balanced separately. But there aren't really any complaints I've seen about traits like Fire Breath or Natural Armor or Powerful Build, so there are still plenty of options for making races mechanically distinct without too much weird biological determinism

[Waazraath]

The little white dragon ate Meepo in our recently completed 5e take on that adventure.


So my table wasn't the only one with that sad ending =D good to known.


Anyway, it all sound very promissing, but seriously. I made a thread earlier on the Mythic Oddyseys of Meh, to discuss my dissapointment in the setting - among others because the abyssmal little player options. And now they repwrint the pityful few (2!) subclasses within a year in another book?! Bugger me sideways, this has been the last time I'm gonna buy a setting book in 5e, at least not before I read it in pdf from cover to cover to see if the fluff is any good and usable. Some people argued that this is because of 'business', but part of that is keeping your customers happy and atm I'm not a happy customer (despite that I'm gonna buy this one though).

[Kyutaru]

I think perhaps a good way of doing this might be to mostly replace Races with Backgrounds, but also design Race-specific Backgrounds or background variants.
Enter Pathfinder 2 where ancestry is a mix of background rules and race with a mini-game of feat selection every few levels reflecting heritage powers.

[Chaosmancer]

Not necessarily. Sorcerers get a few named spells: Aganazzar's Scorcher, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, Snilloc's Snowball Swarm, Melf's Minute Meteors and Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting. So it's not out of the question.

Huh, I hadn't noticed that they changed that in Xanathar's. That means there is hope it will be shared at least.




I'm hoping for a witch archetype - whatever the warlock is now it isn't that, and the name is now wasted. I don't know which class chassis, but wizard makes sense.

I'd also like to see more int casting in general, either class variants (put int warlock in a stat block in an official book, please!), or a full int-based arcane paladin/ranger. That latter bit won't happen because the artificer is happening; but the artificer looks like it breaks the "half casters get no cantrips" rule; going to d8 hit die and losing both extra attack and a fighting style in the trade. That's good, I guess.

Intellect has been shafted in 5e; the skills are weak, the multiclassing options are few, and it is even a dump stat for some class archetype builds that use it as a casting stat.


Considering the post right above yours.... what about the Artificer?

Witches are often more iconic for their use of tools. Potion making, cooking tools (like a small cauldron), a subclass that makes small servants, one that makes a single big servant, you could do stuff with sewing or leathermaking for voodoo.....

It kind of is a perfect fit?

[Amnestic]

Considering the post right above yours.... what about the Artificer?

Witches are often more iconic for their use of tools. Potion making, cooking tools (like a small cauldron), a subclass that makes small servants, one that makes a single big servant, you could do stuff with sewing or leathermaking for voodoo.....

It kind of is a perfect fit?

Witches have a few 'themes' - warlock fits with the idea of hexes and curses, wizards because they frequently use large tomes and cast lots of spells with profane rituals, druids for the nature connection and as you say, Artificer for the brewing (though that's already covered by Alchemist too).

If I were to make a Witch as a separate thing and not just refluffed, I'd make it an int-focused Warlock patron personally.

Hope we see an improved version of the Phantom rogue, since I liked the idea but felt like it just wasn't quite there yet.

[MrStabby]

I'm hoping for a witch archetype - whatever the warlock is now it isn't that, and the name is now wasted. I don't know which class chassis, but wizard makes sense.

I'd also like to see more int casting in general, either class variants (put int warlock in a stat block in an official book, please!), or a full int-based arcane paladin/ranger. That latter bit won't happen because the artificer is happening; but the artificer looks like it breaks the "half casters get no cantrips" rule; going to d8 hit die and losing both extra attack and a fighting style in the trade. That's good, I guess.

Intellect has been shafted in 5e; the skills are weak, the multiclassing options are few, and it is even a dump stat for some class archetype builds that use it as a casting stat.

The issue I have with the witch is that a lot of the classes are too broad... so either you end up with an underpowered character as you chose not to use a lot of their abilities, or you have a weaker theme. Then on top of that you have the things a particular class choice can't do.

So I think bard is closest, followed by druid in terms of match, with wizard being a passible fit. If you go bard, then you are pretty much screwed if you come across a magic resistant enemy (unless you polymorph your allies - which doesnt really feel like an in keeping use of the spell) but get a whole load of skills bonuses that don't really feel appropriate (I mean its not bad if you want expertise in nature and arcana but you better have a DM prepared to make it work otherwise they can be disapointing choices). Also you follow bard you miss out on rituals (unless you gimp yourself by selecting a lot of ritual spells as your class spells) and on divination magic (for the trope of the leaf reading, crystal ball gazing, tarot card reading diviner).

If you go druid, then you lose the curse and enchantment spells. I had really hoped that circle of dreams would cover this... but no. Whilst druid does a good job on the nature side (and wildshape can be a nice touch) I just cant see a witch without a load of enchantment spells, debuffs and maybe just a touch of illusion.

If you go wizard... well you are good at rituals (and can actually get a familliar... so hooray?) and have access to a lot of spells from a lot of schools but you nerf yourself pretty hard if you are not taking the great wizard spells of the edition like wall of force or teleport (and to a lesser extent fireball). This might not be a problem if there are no optimisers in the group at all.



Huh, I hadn't noticed that they changed that in Xanathar's. That means there is hope it will be shared at least.






Considering the post right above yours.... what about the Artificer?

Witches are often more iconic for their use of tools. Potion making, cooking tools (like a small cauldron), a subclass that makes small servants, one that makes a single big servant, you could do stuff with sewing or leathermaking for voodoo.....

It kind of is a perfect fit?

An interesting point... I quite like this. I mean the things the artificer can create are not really all that witchy a lot of the time, but with some new options and some new abilities and some serious boosts to spellcasting instead of extra attacks... yeah. I could see a very unusual primary caster with half spell progression kind of working. The other abilities would have to be awesome and synergistic enough though to make building a character focussed on spellcasting better built through artificer than a full spellcaster. It would be fun to see though.

[MaxWilson]

You're referring to the inclusion of 'and you don't have disadvantage' in the XGTE printing right? Isn't that more of a rules clarification with the main Sneak Attack text rather than a nerf of the subclass?

I'm referring to the fact that SCAG Swashbucklers don't have a range restriction: this following bolded clause does not exist in SCAG.

You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

SCAG Swashbucklers can sneak attack with a longbow at 200 yards, as long as they don't have disadvantage. Xanathar's Swashbucklers cannot, unless they have a source of advantage.

[Willie the Duck]

Or maybe "I Was Just Holding It For You: Tasslehoff's Pouch of Everything."

Knowing the memetic mutation Kender have gotten, "I Was Just Holding It For You: Tasslehoff's Last Words" might be more likely. :smallbiggrin:

[Evaar]

That's a substantial part of the criticisms of it, yeah. Personally I also thought that the flavor was extremely weak and uninspired. "More bookish Wizard" is about as bland an idea as the Champion Fighter, and unlike that not a staple of the game that just kind of has to be there.

I want to speak in defense of the flavor of the Scribe, because I really liked it.

First, it works well as a "non-specific Wizard" option when that's not really what any of the schools, Bladesinger, or War Wizard provide. You can play a scribe as a wizard who does wizarding, not a specialist in one specific kind of wizarding.

But next, it's not just a "more bookish Wizard" if you lean into it. It's a Wizard who studies the epistemology and metaphysics of magic. This is a Wizard who pushes the limits of not just a specific magical discipline, but what's actually possible with magic.

The concept I had back when it was an Artificer subclass was pulled from Captain America: Winter Soldier - imagine a Netherese mentalist who recorded his consciousness into thousands of books, like Arnim Zola did with the old computer database. Each book is a facet of a whole, functioning like programming to allow the mentalist to manifest as a consciousness even after death. It's sort of like a lich with no body and an entire library as a phylactery. And then imagine you can write another book that condenses all that knowledge by referencing out to the other books, and the consciousness can manifest around that shorthand book.

Then that society falls, the library is lost somewhere in the Underdark, but that shorthand book can still be found and activated. That's your Wizard's spellbook. Ancient notes in tangled code, but the more you decipher the more you gain access to a vast store of ancient knowledge.

Both the ancient wizard and the modern one would be Scribes. It's a Wizard who's about the power of knowledge and the written word. And yeah, you can do some of that character type with a Knowledge Cleric I suppose, but not the concept I described above. I think they just need to rewrite the description to really get across what makes it special, then examine the mechanics to see if they deliver on that fantasy - resurrecting via spellbook is cool, but probably doesn't need to lose you a spell, and I don't know what changing damage types of spells has to do with anything. Focus on uses of the spellbook, on glyph-style spells and abilities, scroll-crafting (if they can make it worth doing), that sort of thing.

[kobo1d]

I'm referring to the fact that SCAG Swashbucklers don't have a range restriction: this following bolded clause does not exist in SCAG.

You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

SCAG Swashbucklers can sneak attack with a longbow at 200 yards, as long as they don't have disadvantage. Xanathar's Swashbucklers cannot, unless they have a source of advantage.

SCAG:

"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you"

It's unchanged, just worded better.

[MaxWilson]

SCAG:

"In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you"

It's unchanged, just worded better.

When you're firing at a target 200 yards away, and no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you, Sharpshooter SCAG Swashbucklers get Sneak Attack damage. Sharpshooter Xanathar's Swashbucklers do not.

That's a significant nerf for archers.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm referring to the fact that SCAG Swashbucklers don't have a range restriction: this following bolded clause does not exist in SCAG.

You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don't need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

SCAG Swashbucklers can sneak attack with a longbow at 200 yards, as long as they don't have disadvantage. Xanathar's Swashbucklers cannot, unless they have a source of advantage.

My copy (I don't know if it has changed in an errata or something) reads: "In addition, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5ft of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you."

Though even Swashbuckler's don't need advantage as long as an ally is within 5ft of the target, as per the main SA rules.

Edit: should have refreshed before I replied!

It just looks like they cleared the language up in XGTE, the way you seem to be reading it is that as long as no one is within 5ft of you, you get Sneak Attack, which isn't how I read it and doesn't seem consistent with the fluff or design intent of the feature.

[kobo1d]

When you're firing at a target 200 yards away, and no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you, Sharpshooter SCAG Swashbucklers get Sneak Attack damage. Sharpshooter Xanathar's Swashbucklers do not.

That's a significant nerf for archers.

I can see what you are arguing, but that strikes me as a very purposeful misreading of the feature. It looks like the RAI was indeed clarified by Crawford in 2016 far before XGTE, precisely because it was poorly phrased. Not a nerf, because the authors ever intended Rakish Audacity to work beyond 5ft.

[micahaphone]

I always read the SCAG's "if no creature other than your target is within 5ft of you" to mean "your target is within 5 feet of you and no other enemies are in melee range". I guess I can see that Max's reading of the rules is technically correct, as it doesn't say anything about what if your target also isn't within 5 feet of you. As a DM, I'd disallow that as the intention is clearly towards a melee fighter trading witty banter as they duel a single opponent. XGtE version is just a wording clarification, not a nerf

[Daphne]

I'm wondering if they gutted the psy dice or went on with it for the psionic subclasses.

[Unoriginal]

That's a significant nerf for archers.

Given that the Swashbuckler is supposed to embody the Melee Combat Rogue, I'd say it's less a nerf and more what they intended all along and misworded in the SCAG.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm wondering if they gutted the psy dice or went on with it for the psionic subclasses.

They're on record saying that psi dice were not well received, almost certainly removed.

I personally didn't mind them but even then there's no argument that they weren't needlessly complicated.

[nickl_2000]

I'm wondering if they gutted the psy dice or went on with it for the psionic subclasses.

I imagine they gutted the psy dice. I heard something from JC on a podcast (or maybe read somewhere) that the response to the psy dice unearthed arcana was that people overwhelmingly hated the psy dice.

[MaxWilson]

I can see what you are arguing, but that strikes me as a very purposeful misreading of the feature. It looks like the RAI was indeed clarified by Crawford in 2016 far before XGTE, precisely because it was poorly phrased. Not a nerf, because the authors ever intended Rakish Audacity to work beyond 5ft.

I see where you're coming from, but the current wording is exactly how you'd word it if it were intended to work even at range. You can't leave off "except your target", or it won't work in melee.

SCAG has not been errata'ed to match Xanathar's, which presumably it would have been if it were just a miswording, because correcting miswording and other minor errors is what errata is for. Ergo the Xanathar's version is an actual rule change of the sort that is generally inappropriate for errata (though they sometimes do it anyway in egregious cases, Beastmaster and Healing Spirit).

[kobo1d]

the current wording is exactly how you'd word it if it were intended to work even at range. You can't leave off "except your target", or it won't work in melee.

If that was the intent, perhaps they might have written something like: "If no creature is within 5 feet of you, or the only creature within 5 feet of you is your target, you don't need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack"

Regardless, I think this is a rather pointless discussion, because if you want to ignore the RAI Sage Advice and the reprint that made the RAI the RAW at your table, that's 100% the right call for you, so by Pelor you Swash those Buckles (or Buckle those Swashes) at 200 feet, friend!

[Necrosnoop110]

I didn't imagine someone known for her "hideous laughter" to be this good looking.
Who needs cosmetic surgery when you are a master of transmutation ;)

[Edea]

I'm worried they're trying so hard to avoid power creep that the classes in actual need of it won't really improve.

[micahaphone]

I'm worried they're trying so hard to avoid power creep that the classes in actual need of it won't really improve.

Given how rangers and bladelocks got treated in Xanathar's, I'm not afraid of that. Hopefully not another hexblade, but the new ranger subclasses are an excellent buff to a weak base class.

[Waazraath]

Given how rangers and bladelocks got treated in Xanathar's, I'm not afraid of that. Hopefully not another hexblade, but the new ranger subclasses are an excellent buff to a weak base class.

I don't understand how we keep getting new spells, invocations and feats, but not for example new fighting styles or 4e-monk maneuvers. I mean, the latter would support a subclass that is seen often as one of the weakest, andthe former could be tailor made to support concepts that are weak at the moment (e.g. throwing, grappling).

[MrStabby]

I don't understand how we keep getting new spells, invocations and feats, but not for example new fighting styles or 4e-monk maneuvers. I mean, the latter would support a subclass that is seen often as one of the weakest, andthe former could be tailor made to support concepts that are weak at the moment (e.g. throwing, grappling).

Well if the UA on alternative class features is anything to go by, then more fighting styles might be released here.

[Naanomi]

I don't understand how we keep getting new spells, invocations and feats, but not for example new fighting styles or 4e-monk maneuvers. I mean, the latter would support a subclass that is seen often as one of the weakest, andthe former could be tailor made to support concepts that are weak at the moment (e.g. throwing, grappling).
The biggest complaint about 4emonk that I see is more about how expensive options are, not that you need more options... it would be hard to address that by adding more without just literally invalidating the old ones with cheaper alternatives

[MaxWilson]

The biggest complaint about 4emonk that I see is more about how expensive options are, not that you need more options... it would be hard to address that by adding more without just literally invalidating the old ones with cheaper alternatives

We had a thread on this a while back, and 4E monk options are actually reasonably cost-effective after level 11 (only 4 ki points for Fireball/Fly, whereas spellcasters pay 5 spell points or sorcery points). The lack of additional options came up approximately as often as complaints about cost.

So, clearly at least some people would be happy to see more options, especially ki-free options that let you add minor elemental damage to your attacks with your bonus action instead of using Martial Arts. Sort of like the Elemonk's version of Kensei's Strike, although weaker than Booming Blade.

[Dark.Revenant]

4E Monks, compared to Warlocks, are more efficient than half-casters are compared to full casters. If you blow all your ki on spells and there are a decent number of short rests, you'll out-cast a Paladin/Artificer/Ranger.

The problems are more about variety and the terrible conflicting resource expenditure. AT/EK get a new resource to spend for their admittedly-weaksauce spellcasting. 4E Monks share it with their other features and have virtually no passive way to improve themselves. Open Hand and Drunken Master Monks get a buff to an existing resource expenditure option; Shadow Monks get a cantrip (that's much better than Elemental Attunement); Kensei, Sun Soul, and Long Death Monks get resource-free benefits... And that's just at 3rd level. They get more stuff later. The 4E Monk doesn't. Then to make matters worse, AT/EK learn far more spells than a 4E Monk ever will.

[Daphne]

Honestly, WotC has totally forgotten 4 Elements. I mean, they released a bunch of elemental spells with Princes of the Apocalypse and none became a discipline! Then they copy-pasted those same spells into XGE, which has a lot of other player's options, but still couldn't bother to write half a page to savage the subclass.

[Evaar]

Honestly, WotC has totally forgotten 4 Elements. I mean, they released a bunch of elemental spells with Princes of the Apocalypse and none became a discipline! Then they copy-pasted those same spells into XGE, which has a lot of other player's options, but still couldn't bother to write half a page to savage the subclass.

I know it's not official but isn't there an obvious houserule to open more options for 4E if it's needed that badly? Spell level +1 in total ki cost?

Like I know that doesn't solve the issue if you're playing Adventurer's League or something, but I would expect any DM to be okay with that if the player asked. Not sure it's worth the page space for WotC to just point out the elemental spells they've printed and do the math for you on what the Ki cost would be.

As for what level they unlock, I guess just wait until the spell wouldn't be useful anymore and that's when it becomes available.

[Segev]

I think perhaps a good way of doing this might be to mostly replace Races with Backgrounds, but also design Race-specific Backgrounds or background variants. So people who want to specifically be a Dwarf can have that, and have specific mechanical effects that derive from that, but a person playing a Dwarf can still switch that out with something else should they choose. So playing an Elf might allow you to pick the Elven Mage Guard background, or the Elven Wayfinder background, but if you don't think that those fit your character you can pick a more generic background, like Soldier or Scholar.

Obviously things like speed and poison resistance are probably still going to be baked into the races, so those will need to be balanced separately. But there aren't really any complaints I've seen about traits like Fire Breath or Natural Armor or Powerful Build, so there are still plenty of options for making races mechanically distinct without too much weird biological determinism

Yeah, PF2's "background" is not a bad approach to breaking some of this out. It would take retooling both races and 5e Backgrounds to remix background "raised in this culture" elements into Background-the-choice, while keeping physical "my race is just like this" properties to the racial selection.

e.g. darkvision is not something humans should have. (Arguable on other races, since all the others are fictional, but still if halflings don't have it, they shouldn't have it; no 'well I was raised by dwarves so I have darkvision' traits for halflings or humans.) But if your human was raised by elves, maybe he can have elven weapon proficiencies. The High Elf cantrip is even a "raised by the culture" thing. Drow Superior Darkvision is a "physical" thing. Whether their spellcasting is "physical" (because they're just innately magical) or "raise by the culture" (either because all drow just learn these in drow elementary school, or because underdark radiation is what makes them that magical) is more...questionable.

[Kyutaru]

Yeah, PF2's "background" is not a bad approach to breaking some of this out. It would take retooling both races and 5e Backgrounds to remix background "raised in this culture" elements into Background-the-choice, while keeping physical "my race is just like this" properties to the racial selection.
PF2 doesn't exactly do what you're suggesting but I can see where you're going with it. It goes beyond this with ancestry feats too. All the main racial perks and heritage comes from selecting those every few levels. The weird thing about it is that halflings don't become stealthy until level 13. Like what? Why does class advancement tie into that? The backgrounds themselves are more like professions and almost entirely serve to decide your other skill, feat, and ability score boosts. Since the game's character creation starts with ability scores of 10 the background you select plays a major role in determining your final stats.

[Daphne]

I know it's not official but isn't there an obvious houserule to open more options for 4E if it's needed that badly? Spell level +1 in total ki cost?

They could at least put a text box saying "you can allow these and any other spell you feel like as 4E disciplines, here's how". It wouldn't occupy much space.

[D.U.P.A.]

Considering the book is about Tasha, what about the original Tasha? The little girl who wrote a letter to Gygax suggesting the laughter spell. Has she ever stepped out? It would be very interesting to see. The letter was probably written like in early 80s, she was probably like 10 years old, which means she is now around 50 I guess. I mean, you would be proud if a spell and then one of the signficant character is named after you.

[Segev]

PF2 doesn't exactly do what you're suggesting but I can see where you're going with it. It goes beyond this with ancestry feats too. All the main racial perks and heritage comes from selecting those every few levels. The weird thing about it is that halflings don't become stealthy until level 13. Like what? Why does class advancement tie into that? The backgrounds themselves are more like professions and almost entirely serve to decide your other skill, feat, and ability score boosts. Since the game's character creation starts with ability scores of 10 the background you select plays a major role in determining your final stats.
Fair enough; I don't actually like PF2's implementation of it, and my only point was that there's some useful ideas in the general sense there.

I particularly dislike that PF2's races get so few feats to start with to define "being that race," and to build, say, a PF1 dwarf takes a half-dozen PF2 racial feats. They grossly over-divided the racial traits up; they're not worth a feat individually as-is.

So none of that is what I was saying I wanted to see in a 5e emulation of the broad concept. Rather, as I think you indicate you picked up on, the notion that you can split some of what races get right now into "nature" and "nurture," and make the "nurture" available to biologically-other-race characters who are, for instance, raised in a different culture/society. Even an elf raised by elves might instead have dwarven weapon familiarity if his parents are minor diplomatic functionaries to a dwarven kingdom and he grew up going to a dwarven school around dwarven kids and learned dwarven fighting styles in dwarven dojos (or whatever).

It also does open up "yeah, no, I didn't learn a cantrip; I was too busy learning this other cool thing that this book has come out with that high elves can learn instead of a cantrip."

[Waterdeep Merch]

PF2's ancestry feats are roughly similar to 4e's racial feats, except I was never bothered by the latter in the same way as the former because you usually got a fairly complete package at level 1 and racial feats were typically above and beyond- much more like Xanathar's racial feats, come to think of it.

I wouldn't mind more of those, especially with this lineage system. Maybe a slight differentiation between feats that are cultural in nature (and thus selectable if you've got the right lineage) versus ones that require a physical trait of your's, like darkvision, breath weapons, underwater breathing, etc.

I'm also not against amalgamation PC's that pick a grab bag of physical traits that don't ordinarily belong to any particular species, though I'd prefer an explanation. I'm wondering how weird the lineage system will let you get, or if it comes with built-in explanations.

[AdAstra]

grab bag is also nice if it encourages people to homebrew/customize races/backgrounds more. In an ideal world it would be nice to even have detailed support for mixing, matching, and wholesale creating classes (beyond the level of multiclassing), but that’s a whole lot more design work that isn’t reasonable to expect for a good while (would only really have a place in a dedicated supplement, DMG 2, or new edition). For now, what they’re doing is very satisfactory.

[Arkhios]

Must say I was sure Tasha was a male character before today, though, but I think it was confusing Tasha and Tenser.

It's kinda funny when you think about it. Tasha doesn't exactly sound like a masculine name, does it? :smallbiggrin:


The design team has said a few times that the inclusion of Psionic subclasses should not signify they aren’t working on a Psionic class.

Taking everything released as if it was a sign of something similar will not ever appear is an odd perspective to say the least, in my honest opinion. Not only regarding D&D design. This (weird) attitude appears everywhere as far as I've seen. :smallconfused:

Have some hope. Hope makes life better.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Considering the book is about Tasha, what about the original Tasha? The little girl who wrote a letter to Gygax suggesting the laughter spell. Has she ever stepped out? It would be very interesting to see. The letter was probably written like in early 80s, she was probably like 10 years old, which means she is now around 50 I guess. I mean, you would be proud if a spell and then one of the signficant character is named after you.

Hey that gives me an idea! What’s jc’s address and where are my crayons?

[nickl_2000]

Hey that gives me an idea! What’s jc’s address and where are my crayons?

Alright, now I'm curious what you would even ask for.

[Joe the Rat]

Considering the post right above yours.... what about the Artificer?

Witches are often more iconic for their use of tools. Potion making, cooking tools (like a small cauldron), a subclass that makes small servants, one that makes a single big servant, you could do stuff with sewing or leathermaking for voodoo.....

It kind of is a perfect fit?

Artificer leans heavily into the making things and using things to create magic, and making things for others to use. The only thing that says magitek is the use of tinker's tools as a base function - tinker in this case being gnome clockwork, as opposed to the "sharpen knives and patch pans" tinker. So it is really a matter of aesthetic. If you go alchemist, the assumption is every spell is whipping out concoctions and powders and vials for your magic. Artillerist is a woodworker in his spare time. Why be a scientist?

I am running a by-the-book Lizardfolk Artificer that leans heavily into the witch doctor aesthetic - its all bones and etched symbols and bits of animals and weird dried things in gri-gri pouches for infusions. Be an alchemist, use a cauldron and a cupboard as your alchemy focus. Your infusions are treatments and enchantments on items, handed out to your allies. Be an Artillerist, and still use a cauldron for your turret. Then go carving up idols and rune-encrusted staves that happen to have a mass of twigs on one end.

But my idea of witch is less Pathfinder Hex and Cackle, and more Baba Yaga.

[Unoriginal]

But my idea of witch is less Pathfinder Hex and Cackle, and more Baba Yaga.

Funnily I think there is a good chance Baba Yaga, or at least her Hut, is in this book.

[Dienekes]

Funnily I think there is a good chance Baba Yaga, or at least her Hut, is in this book.

I did not realize Tasha was raised by the old baby eater herself until this book was announced. Though I’m curious if D&D Baba Yaga is as colorful as the Slavic one.

[Kyutaru]

I hope they don't wait three years to give us Mordenkainen's Tome of Everything.

[Segev]

I did not realize Tasha was raised by the old baby eater herself until this book was announced. Though I’m curious if D&D Baba Yaga is as colorful as the Slavic one.

Pretty sure the original writing of her was meant to straight-up be the Slavic one, so you can just assume she imports all the narrative details. I don't know if she's been written heavily enough into any settings (Greyhawk, perhaps) to have a unique history divorced from the Slavic legends that inspired her.

My first introduction to the concept of Baba Yaga was a 1e AD&D dungeon that was her dancing hut. It was bigger on the inside, and you had to win a fight with it as a huge monster to even get it to settle down long enough to enter.

[Unoriginal]

I hope they don't wait three years to give us Mordenkainen's Tome of Everything.

Mordenkainen already got his turn with Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes.

[nickl_2000]

Bigby's Book of Everything?

[Unoriginal]

Bigby's Book of Everything?

Bigby's Handbook of Everything.

[MrStabby]

Bigby's Handbook of Everything.

Bigby's Grasping Handful?

[MaxWilson]

I did not realize Tasha was raised by the old baby eater herself until this book was announced. Though I’m curious if D&D Baba Yaga is as colorful as the Slavic one.

The Baba Yaga expy in Curse of Strahd ("Baba Lysaga") has a chicken hut but overall is not as colorful as you probably are hoping. No wacky shenanigans ensue with talking cats, combs turning into forests or ribbons into rivers. I'm not even sure if she has iron teeth and a flying mortar and pestle.

[Segev]

Bigby's Book of Everything?


Bigby's Handbook of Everything.


Bigby's Grasping Handful?

Guys, it's obvious that it'll be "Bigby's Handbook."


Might be a good place for concentrated player's options, both new and some "reprints to consolidate."

[Unoriginal]

The Baba Yaga expy in Curse of Strahd ("Baba Lysaga") has a chicken hut but overall is not as colorful as you probably are hoping. No wacky shenanigans ensue with talking cats, combs turning into forests or ribbons into rivers. I'm not even sure if she has iron teeth and a flying mortar and pestle.

I'm pretty sure that the actual Baba Yaga of previous editions had at least the flying mortar and pestle.

[Joe the Rat]

Guys, it's obvious that it'll be "Bigby's Handbook."

Well Played.

[Dienekes]

The Baba Yaga expy in Curse of Strahd ("Baba Lysaga") has a chicken hut but overall is not as colorful as you probably are hoping. No wacky shenanigans ensue with talking cats, combs turning into forests or ribbons into rivers. I'm not even sure if she has iron teeth and a flying mortar and pestle.

Dang. I doubt she’d ever even turn her fingernails into long arms that she uses to reach across rooms and shove passerby’s into her cooking pot.

Disappointing.

[Millstone85]

Funnily I think there is a good chance Baba Yaga, or at least her Hut, is in this book.
My first introduction to the concept of Baba Yaga was a 1e AD&D dungeon that was her dancing hut. It was bigger on the inside, and you had to win a fight with it as a huge monster to even get it to settle down long enough to enter.
The Baba Yaga expy in Curse of Strahd ("Baba Lysaga") has a chicken hut but overall is not as colorful as you probably are hoping.One of the pictures on Nerdarchy is called "Chapter 1 Opener: Tasha and Baba Yaga" and features the chicken hut.

https://i2.wp.com/nerdarchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Chapter-1-Opener-Tasha-and-Baba-Yaga-scaled.jpg?fit=495%2C640&ssl=1

[Naanomi]

One of the pictures on Nerdarchy is called "Chapter 1 Opener: Tasha and Baba Yaga" and features the chicken hut.

https://i2.wp.com/nerdarchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Chapter-1-Opener-Tasha-and-Baba-Yaga-scaled.jpg?fit=495%2C640&ssl=1
If I recall correctly, that hut was among the Artifacts in the original DMG?

[Millstone85]

If I recall correctly, that hut was among the Artifacts in the original DMG?I do not see it among the artifacts, but it is at the beginning of chapter 3, page 70.

[Draz74]

Artificer leans heavily into the making things and using things to create magic, and making things for others to use. The only thing that says magitek is the use of tinker's tools as a base function - tinker in this case being gnome clockwork, as opposed to the "sharpen knives and patch pans" tinker. So it is really a matter of aesthetic. If you go alchemist, the assumption is every spell is whipping out concoctions and powders and vials for your magic. Artillerist is a woodworker in his spare time. Why be a scientist?

I am running a by-the-book Lizardfolk Artificer that leans heavily into the witch doctor aesthetic - its all bones and etched symbols and bits of animals and weird dried things in gri-gri pouches for infusions. Be an alchemist, use a cauldron and a cupboard as your alchemy focus. Your infusions are treatments and enchantments on items, handed out to your allies. Be an Artillerist, and still use a cauldron for your turret. Then go carving up idols and rune-encrusted staves that happen to have a mass of twigs on one end.

But my idea of witch is less Pathfinder Hex and Cackle, and more Baba Yaga.

I'm another fan of Alchemist-Artificer-as-witch build strategy. Came up with that about a month ago.

[jaappleton]

Next book title should be Bigby’s Handful of Everything

[Wizard_Lizard]

Alright, now I'm curious what you would even ask for.
Ashen Forest's Luminous Bauble,
or Wizard Lizard's Blizzard of Gizzards

[Spiritchaser]

or Wizard Lizard's Blizzard of Gizzards

Ok, one of the campaigns I’m running now is a lighter one for my children (who are 8 and 10)

If you don’t mind terribly...

I’d like to create that spell for them. Wizard Lizard is the diabolical villain they still remember (even years later) from a children’s book called “super worm” so it’d fit rather well.

Best of luck with JC and the crayons

[Damon_Tor]

It is also on their main website. (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/tashas-cauldron-everything)

I didn't imagine someone known for her "hideous laughter" to be this good looking.

She's a wizard, and high enough level to invent her own magic. At a certain level they can look like whatever they want. If they're serious about it they don't even need illusions, just a liberal mix of True Polymorph and Clone, enough cash to blow on the endeavor, and a DM who enjoys spell-combo shenanigans when used for things like adjusting your cup size.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Ok, one of the campaigns I’m running now is a lighter one for my children (who are 8 and 10)

If you don’t mind terribly...

I’d like to create that spell for them. Wizard Lizard is the diabolical villain they still remember (even years later) from a children’s book called “super worm” so it’d fit rather well.

Best of luck with JC and the crayons

I don't mind if ya create the spell!

[Edea]

Another book name might be Heward's Handy Handbook...

[Wizard_Lizard]

a Vecna's tome of secret knowings would be interesting.

[Personification]

I, for one, eagerly await X the Mystic's Guide to Dungeon Survival.

[MaxWilson]

I, for one, eagerly await X the Mystic's Guide to Dungeon Survival.

Is that a Master of Magic joke?

[Millstone85]

Is that a Master of Magic joke?If so, I wouldn't get it.

But X the Mystic shows up a bunch of times in the MM:

Trust a flumph.

Before you drink from a fountain or pool, toss a copper coin into it. It is a small price to pay for your life.

Sometimes a chest is just a chest, but don't bet on it.

No one carves statues of frightened warriors. If you see one, keep your eyes close and your ears open.

Keep a few gems in your pocket. A hungry xorn is a helpful xorn.

Before opening a sarcophagus, light a torch.

They sound like a good companion.

[Luccan]

So, what do we know about new racial ability optinos, other than changing your stat bonuses? Is there going to remain a mechanical difference between writing Elf or Dwarf on a character sheet?

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, what do we know about new racial ability optinos, other than changing your stat bonuses? Is there going to remain a mechanical difference between writing Elf or Dwarf on a character sheet?

We don't know all of the specifics yet, many have been curious about that since this book was teased a few months back.

I will say, the wording includes "racial traits" rather than "racial ability scores" as it was first presented, so I assume we'll see some new options to keep them unique.

[CornfedCommando]

So if WotC is backpedaling a step or two and putting the Aberrant Mind back into play, how do you think its final form will look? In the UA, it had a list of bonus spells, but those were cut from other Sorc subclasses in the finished product (ala Storm Sorcerer). I feel like I remember reactions to the class being fairly mixed. I’m therefore quite curious as to what the end result will be, as I’m assuming there will be some heavy revisions between UA and print.

[micahaphone]

So if WotC is backpedaling a step or two and putting the Aberrant Mind back into play, how do you think its final form will look? In the UA, it had a list of bonus spells, but those were cut from other Sorc subclasses in the finished product (ala Storm Sorcerer). I feel like I remember reactions to the class being fairly mixed. I’m therefore quite curious as to what the end result will be, as I’m assuming there will be some heavy revisions between UA and print.

I love love love the aberrant mind sorc. I don't think they should get a free mage armor at level 1. That's not really relevant to a cosmic horror origin, even if they flavored it well.
I'm really really hoping they still have a domain list (I think one spell per level would still keep a sorcerer limited while giving very flavorful spells) but given what happened with the 3 of Xanathar's I'm assuming you'll get a single 1st or 2nd level spell for free. Probably suggestion or arms of hadar, but I'd hope for Phantasmal Force

[CornfedCommando]

The spell list in the UA is very thematic and mostly unavailable to the base class. So I wonder if they’ll instead add these spells to the sorcerer’s list. Kinda like how the Divine Soul can choose from all the Cleric spells. I feel like, in this instance, they have to do something to maintain the flavor. Maybe give them Dissonant Whispers as a freebie then just open up the whole Warlock list? I’m really curious to see what their solution is.

[Bosh]

Apparently they're going to let people swap around their starting stats a bit. Which while I see why they're doing it kinds rubs me the wrong way. I like how some races have racial abilities that run directly counter to their stats. For example mountain dwarves get armor profs... that are mostly useless to the classes that need the stat mods that dwarves get. Same with high elves, wizards don't NEED that extra cantrip and classes that really need that extra cantrip don't need the int. I like that kind of dynamic as it opens up room for some interesting niches and gives race some nice flavor besides "really good at X class." If you start letting people swap out the stats then you can align those things that don't synergize well, if anything I'd like to see all races get those kind of abilities that don't synergize well with each other, helps give each race flavor without pigeonholing them.

[Amnestic]

Apparently they're going to let people swap around their starting stats a bit. Which while I see why they're doing it kinds rubs me the wrong way. I like how some races have racial abilities that run directly counter to their stats. For example mountain dwarves get armor profs... that are mostly useless to the classes that need the stat mods that dwarves get. Same with high elves, wizards don't NEED that extra cantrip and classes that really need that extra cantrip don't need the int. I like that kind of dynamic as it opens up room for some interesting niches and gives race some nice flavor besides "really good at X class." If you start letting people swap out the stats then you can align those things that don't synergize well, if anything I'd like to see all races get those kind of abilities that don't synergize well with each other, helps give each race flavor without pigeonholing them.

I'd be wary about judging the system before we see exactly how it works. It sounds like they might be taking hints from Pathfinder 2e's system but we'll see.

[MrStabby]

The spell list in the UA is very thematic and mostly unavailable to the base class. So I wonder if they’ll instead add these spells to the sorcerer’s list. Kinda like how the Divine Soul can choose from all the Cleric spells. I feel like, in this instance, they have to do something to maintain the flavor. Maybe give them Dissonant Whispers as a freebie then just open up the whole Warlock list? I’m really curious to see what their solution is.

I think it might have to be a custom list they get extra spells from - to get the right warlock spells but also basically anything on the GOO list as well. And this is my reservation - it would feel like creating the GOO but just, well, better.

[micahaphone]

Apparently they're going to let people swap around their starting stats a bit. Which while I see why they're doing it kinds rubs me the wrong way. I like how some races have racial abilities that run directly counter to their stats. For example mountain dwarves get armor profs... that are mostly useless to the classes that need the stat mods that dwarves get. Same with high elves, wizards don't NEED that extra cantrip and classes that really need that extra cantrip don't need the int. I like that kind of dynamic as it opens up room for some interesting niches and gives race some nice flavor besides "really good at X class." If you start letting people swap out the stats then you can align those things that don't synergize well, if anything I'd like to see all races get those kind of abilities that don't synergize well with each other, helps give each race flavor without pigeonholing them.

I think it's there for people who want to play a character concept but the stat line is very un optimal. Now they can point at a thing in a book and say "hey DM check out this optional rule" instead of "hey DM will you pretty please allow this small houserule so I can start with a 16 in my main stat".
For example, the possibility of a dragonborn character who isn't a paladin excites me. I've got a neat concept of a dragonborn wizard, now if I play them I won't be a crappier wizard than if I had made a different racial choice. Or how a forest gnome doesn't give a druid anything, despite the name.



You're correct to be concerned about the potential mountain dwarf wizards, but I'm hoping that they'll have some limits or restrictions to what is or isn't swapped.

[Segev]

I think it's there for people who want to play a character concept but the stat line is very un optimal. Now they can point at a thing in a book and say "hey DM check out this optional rule" instead of "hey DM will you pretty please allow this small houserule so I can start with a 16 in my main stat".

In my view, 5e already handled that by having no "minuses" in stat lines. (It's one reason I'm less than thrilled with the Kobold and a couple other later-released races.) As long as you're not going for that 20 in a stat, most stat-generation methods will let you make your race's +2 a dump stat and put your high score where you want it to get a reasonable ability score for whatever class you want.

Stat mods are kind-of the epitome of "this is an actual difference between the races that's based on blood/genetics/whatever." Which is why it concerns me to see the stat mod become arbitrary. The gnome and the half-orc should not have the same stat-spread on average, and even "only the PCs" getting to have that just means that the PCs aren't really playing a gnome, but rather a half-orc cosplaying as a gnome.

[nickl_2000]

In my view, 5e already handled that by having no "minuses" in stat lines. (It's one reason I'm less than thrilled with the Kobold and a couple other later-released races.) As long as you're not going for that 20 in a stat, most stat-generation methods will let you make your race's +2 a dump stat and put your high score where you want it to get a reasonable ability score for whatever class you want.

Stat mods are kind-of the epitome of "this is an actual difference between the races that's based on blood/genetics/whatever." Which is why it concerns me to see the stat mod become arbitrary. The gnome and the half-orc should not have the same stat-spread on average, and even "only the PCs" getting to have that just means that the PCs aren't really playing a gnome, but rather a half-orc cosplaying as a gnome.

I do believe that they re-wrote these races in this book to get rid of the minuses