Fizban's first impressions

[Dork_Forge]

Liking it so far, and they explicitly call out the Tiatmat in RoT as an Avatar, not the real deal.

[TyGuy]

Something I'm curious about. I know it's early but how does this one stack up against the other books?
Looking for opinions from people that thought Tasha's was underwhelming and Xanathar's was overall pretty good despite a few choice issues.
Is this one pretty even with MToF & Volo's?

[Dark.Revenant]

I gotta ask, though: who else is going to make the Dragonhide Belt a championship belt for a fisticuff tournament?

shamelessly writes the idea down...

[Millstone85]

If I remember correctly, the Hoard of the Dragon Queen modules were written by Kobold Press, not WOTC, which does make it very complicated to understand exactly what 5e's theology system is, considering this was one of the first official modules ever released.

The design is just so different, you can practically tell at a glance that it was made without full access to the final design of 5e. We know that at best they were working with a pre-release "mostly complete" iteration of the DMG, at worst a completely outdated one.

In this particular case, however, the old adventure agrees with the core books while Fizban's does not.

Bahamut and Tiamat are lesser gods (MM p86 & p103). That means they are embodied somewhere in the planes, as opposed to manifesting through expendable avatars (DMG p11).

Liking it so far, and they explicitly call out the Tiatmat in RoT as an Avatar, not the real deal.

Do you mean that Fizban's refers to the Tiamat in RoT as an avatar, or that Tiamat was already referred to as an avatar in RoT?

[JackPhoenix]

Do you mean that Fizban's refers to the Tiamat in RoT as an avatar, or that Tiamat was already referred to as an avatar in RoT?

The word 'avatar' doesn't appear anywhere in either RoT or HotDQ.

[Dork_Forge]

Do you mean that Fizban's refers to the Tiamat in RoT as an avatar, or that Tiamat was already referred to as an avatar in RoT?

Fizban's explicitly calls out the events of Severin in the HotDQ/RoT storyline as attempting to summon an Avatar of Tiamat.

[Naanomi]

I'm having trouble parsing the new timeline... Aboleth predated the Gods in the Prime, but Tiamat/Bahamut were Gods that were present at the creation of the Prime? (Note: haven't read fill text yet, maybe it is addressed)

[Millstone85]

The word 'avatar' doesn't appear anywhere in either RoT or HotDQ.

Fizban's explicitly calls out the events of Severin in the HotDQ/RoT storyline as attempting to summon an Avatar of Tiamat.

Good! As retcons go, this one is at least somewhat clean.

Now, I wonder if Bahamut and Tiamat have been upgraded to greater gods (as creators of the First World, they really should) or if WotC understood that all gods should be fought as avatars.

I'm having trouble parsing the new timeline... Aboleth predated the Gods in the Prime, but Tiamat/Bahamut were Gods that were present at the creation of the Prime? (Note: haven't read fill text yet, maybe it is addressed)

Same. I don't have the book yet, but aboleths are one of the things I will look for when I do.

[Dork_Forge]

Good! As retcons go, this one is at least somewhat clean.

Now, I wonder if Bahamut and Tiamat have been upgraded to greater gods (as creators of the First World, they really should) or if WotC understood that all gods should be fought as avatars.

From my first reading it's complicated, they're not really gods, they're intrinsically linked to the material world, Bahumet was welcomed into Mount Celestia, they can both power Clerics, but there's a clear divide drawn between the gods of the Outerplanes and Bahumet and Tiamat.

As for the blocks in the book, they're not the actual beings, they're just aspects of them, really cool ones, but it's clear you're not killing B+H themselves.

[Naanomi]

From my first reading it's complicated, they're not really gods, they're intrinsically linked to the material world, Bahumet was welcomed into Mount Celestia, they can both power Clerics, but there's a clear divide drawn between the gods of the Outerplanes and Bahumet and Tiamat.

That is kind of how Io used to be treated... A much older primordial power than the Gods, but 'became' a God when such things began to exist (a few other beings, to varying degrees, got the same treatment)

[Millstone85]

Well they do go into some depth about how dragons are not really gods even though people worship them. So you can't expect them to fully obey the rules of gods. Dragons seem to have multiple existences all at once so I think this fits in with that idea, the avatar of Tiamat is just the echo of Tiamat in this material realm there can be others at the same time in other material realms. Which is just how dragons are.

I like that mythic actions are really breaking out of the Theros book, I think they make for great boss monsters.

From my first reading it's complicated, they're not really gods, they're intrinsically linked to the material world, Bahumet was welcomed into Mount Celestia, they can both power Clerics, but there's a clear divide drawn between the gods of the Outerplanes and Bahumet and Tiamat.

As for the blocks in the book, they're not the actual beings, they're just aspects of them, really cool ones, but it's clear you're not killing B+H themselves.

I saw an interview where James Wyatt explicitly left Bahamut and Tiamat out of the new greatwyrm lore.

link to video
That's a stickier metaphysical question, because Bahamut and Tiamat created the First World, rather than being a part of it, so they are in a slightly different category. Although their aspects also appear in the bestiary as mythic monsters, using that same technology.

But I guess I will have to see for myself what they actually wrote.

[Dork_Forge]

I saw an interview where James Wyatt explicitly left Bahamut and Tiamat out of the new greatwyrm lore.



But I guess I will have to see for myself what they actually wrote.

Greatwyrms are essentially dragons that absorb their echoes from other worlds, there's only one B+T from what I understand, with their aspects instead of echoes. This is from the book if it helps:

Bahamut and Tiamat, the primordial dragons and the purported creators of the First World, are the closest things to gods among dragonkind. Since they share the same fundamental connection to the Material Plane as their dragon offspring, Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically distinct from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes. But for practical purposes, they are divine—worshiped by mortal creatures, able to grant cleric spells to their followers, and both ageless and immortal. Since the destruction of the First World, both primordial dragons now dwell in the Outer Planes—Bahamut on Mount Celestia and Tiamat in the Nine Hells.

On many worlds, Humanoids worship Bahamut and Tiamat as gods. On Krynn, they are the greatest among the gods, though they are known there as Paladine and Takhisis and are not always pictured as dragons. In the Dawn War pantheon described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Bahamut is revered as a god of justice and nobility, favored by paladins, while Tiamat is known as a god of greed, wealth, and vengeance.

Dragons view the primordial dragons differently. To metallic dragons, Bahamut is more like a king than a god. Individual dragons might owe Bahamut allegiance, respect him, pay tribute to him, and strive to emulate him. Similarly, chromatic dragons might fear, respect, envy, and appease Tiamat as a sovereign. But none of those attitudes and behaviors bear any resemblance in a dragon’s mind to the worship that mortals offer to their gods.

A few other dragons also command reverence from their kin. These are often greatwyrms who have undergone a sort of apotheosis, joining multiple echoes of themselves into a single powerful form. A few are ancient dragons who have cultivated their dragonsight to such a degree that they can coordinate the actions of their echoes across the Material Plane, influencing events on multiple worlds at once. Humanoids might consider these dragons gods, but as with Bahamut and Tiamat, dragons respect these figures for their wisdom, their might, their magic, and their wealth; they don’t worship them. Such enlightened dragons include Aasterinian (a brass dragon who serves as a messenger for Bahamut and is sometimes identified as a god of invention), Chronepsis (a black dragon who now resides in the Outlands, sometimes imagined as a god of fate), and Tamara (a silver dragon of transcendent beneficence, described as a god of life). A number of such dragons of legend are discussed in more detail in sidebars in chapters 5 and 6.

[Naanomi]

"Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically distinct from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes"

Ok but what about the other Gods not from the Outer Planes?

[Dork_Forge]

"Bahamut and Tiamat are ontologically distinct from the gods that hail from the Outer Planes"

Ok but what about the other Gods not from the Outer Planes?

The take is basically the first world, the material plane, was just dragons before the gods and their followers came. They warred with the dragons and through some cataclysm the first world shattered into the different worlds. Bahumet made peace with the newcomers, learned to understand them, whereas Tiamat kept fighting for her kind and their world.

I think this lore would treat everything not in the first world at that time as outer planes, and there was no gods then.

I haven't seen it touched on, by theoretically, Aboleths could have existed in the first world at some point along with dragons, and got the short end of the stick when the gods arrived too. Not big on lore, but I don't think I've read anything that contradicts it.

[Naanomi]

I was thinking more of the handful of Gods from the Inner Planes, which predates the Prime by most historical models

[Millstone85]

This is from the book if it helps:

It does, thank you.

[jaappleton]

Quick question for everyone

New Dragonborn Breath Weapon

If I'm a 11th level Dragonborn Fighter

Can I nova blast via action surge, utilize my breath weapon four times, and still make two weapon attacks, and have my bonus action?

The breath weapon stipulate "you can replace one of your attacks", which initially makes me think it's limited to once per attack action. HOWEVER, the common 5e vernacular has long been the line "once per turn", which this noticeably lacks.

So to me it's slightly unclear.

[Amnestic]

It's got similar wording to Bladesinger's cantrip-attack

Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.

Which is pretty clearly intended to be only 1/turn and not let you double up on cantrips (so that you're swordswinging, not just cantrip spamming).

But on the other hand it's similar to grapples/shoves, in replacing one of the attacks,

Using the Attack action, you can make a Special melee Attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.

Which is intended to be usable multiple times in one attack action.

I think you can use it multiple times in one turn, my reasoning for why it differs to Bladesinger being that you're expending a limited resource to do so. And that it's cool. And Fighters deserve to do a cool thing.

[TyGuy]

Quick question for everyone

New Dragonborn Breath Weapon

If I'm a 11th level Dragonborn Fighter

Can I nova blast via action surge, utilize my breath weapon four times, and still make two weapon attacks, and have my bonus action?

The breath weapon stipulate "you can replace one of your attacks", which initially makes me think it's limited to once per attack action. HOWEVER, the common 5e vernacular has long been the line "once per turn", which this noticeably lacks.

So to me it's slightly unclear.

The Attack action is when you take your action to uppercase Attack. It can consist of 1-4 lower case attacks depending on class features. Those lower case attacks can be any combination of grapples, shoves, weapon attacks, or unarmed attacks (which are weapon attacks I guess, according to SA if I recall).
Seems pretty clear that the breath weapon replaces one of the three attacks that make up the level 11 fighter's Attack action.

[jaappleton]

The Attack action is when you take your action to uppercase Attack. It can consist of 1-4 lower case attacks depending on class features. Those lower case attacks can be any combination of grapples, shoves, weapon attacks, or unarmed attacks (which are weapon attacks I guess, according to SA if I recall).
Seems pretty clear that the breath weapon replaces one of the three attacks that make up the level 11 fighter's Attack action.

So.... your answer is "yes do the cool thing and breathe death laser all over everyone"?

EDIT:
I just got clarification from.... someone that would know. >_>

It's one. Once per turn.

If that's the case.... Honestly, it's written quite poorly.

And the Dragonborn aren't nearly as fun as I had thought. Still quite an improvement over PHB, but nowhere near as good as I first thought.

I'm going to choose to ignore the ruling, personally.

[Amechra]

I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be once per Attack action. It's telling you to replace one of the attacks.

It's like how if I offer you three apples and tell you "you can replace one of these apples with a banana", it's generally understood that what I'm saying is "you can have either three apples OR two apples and a banana."

EDIT: Like, that's less of a "ruling", and more of a "that's generally how you're supposed to parse that kind of sentence in English" kind of thing.

[TyGuy]

So.... your answer is "yes do the cool thing and breathe death laser all over everyone"?

EDIT:
I just got clarification from.... someone that would know. >_>

It's one. Once per turn.

If that's the case.... Honestly, it's written quite poorly.

And the Dragonborn aren't nearly as fun as I had thought. Still quite an improvement over PHB, but nowhere near as good as I first thought.

I'm going to choose to ignore the ruling, personally.

I'm pretty sure that it's supposed to be once per Attack action. It's telling you to replace one of the attacks.

It's like how if I offer you three apples and tell you "you can replace one of these apples with a banana", it's generally understood that what I'm saying is "you can have either three apples OR two apples and a banana."

And in the example you're looking at 2 breath attacks possible for a turn since action surge is providing a second Attack action.
And with the haste spell, that's a third Attack action and thus a hasted dragonborn fighter can bust out 3 breath weapons and four weapon attacks at level 11 in one turn.

[Millstone85]

It's like how if I offer you three apples and tell you "you can replace one of these apples with a banana", it's generally understood that what I'm saying is "you can have either three apples OR two apples and a banana."

Which is why I am still dumbfounded by multiple grapples.

[PhantomSoul]

Which is why I am still dumbfounded by multiple grapples.

That one works for me as a lot more consistent with the phrasing:

When you want t o grab a creature o r wrestle with it,
you can use the Attack action to make a special melee
attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks
with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

It's not that "when you take the Attack Action, you can replace one Attack with a Grapple attempt", but instead that the Grapple replaces one Attack instead of requiring the full Attack Action.

[TyGuy]

That one works for me as a lot more consistent with the phrasing:


It's not that "when you take the Attack Action, you can replace one Attack with a Grapple attempt", but instead that the Grapple replaces one Attack instead of requiring the full Attack Action.

Oh snap. I was completely misremembering grapples and shoves as "replace any number of them". It does say replace ONE and so I think those are one per Attack action as well.

Edit: sage advice stated it's multiple grapples or shoves and the wording is an attempt to clarify that one shove or grapple replaces one attack

[Millstone85]

Oh snap. I was completely misremembering grapples and shoves as "replace any number of them". It does say replace ONE and so I think those are one per Attack action as well.

Edit: sage advice stated it's multiple grapples or shoves and the wording is an attempt to clarify that one shove or grapple replaces one attack

And by sage advice, you mean Crawford's twitter account. Somehow, this wasn't judged worthy of the compendium.

[Amechra]

And with the haste spell, that's a third Attack action

I think it's actually kinda questionable whether or not you can replace the attack from Haste's Attack action with other stuff, since it specifies "one weapon attack" and specific trumps general.

But yeah, I think they could do with a little bit of clarification.

[TyGuy]

And by sage advice, you mean Crawford's twitter account. Somehow, this wasn't judged worthy of the compendium.

Yes. I guess there is a distinction even though it's the same guy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECr...43392257249281
I'm seeing a difference in wording from the UA and PHB though. And I think it makes the distinction.
"When you take the Attack action, you can replace one of your attacks with X"
Vs
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
I think the breath weapon is more clear. You can replace "one of X attacks".
The PHB relies on an inferred emphasis on "this attack" and an assumption that the reader will extrapolate to 1 shove/grapple (special attack) = 1 attack.

[PhantomSoul]

Oh snap. I was completely misremembering grapples and shoves as "replace any number of them". It does say replace ONE and so I think those are one per Attack action as well.

Edit: sage advice stated it's multiple grapples or shoves and the wording is an attempt to clarify that one shove or grapple replaces one attack

I interpret the PHB for Grapples as perfectly consistent with (and in fact favouring) that you can replace any number, but crucially each Grapple replaces a single Attack within the Attack Action. In the context of Grapples, it's making a direct distinction between being a thing you can do once when you take the Attack Action (preceding line) and it only replacing a single one of the Attacks instead of all of them (that line), which doesn't preclude replacing another Attack if you get multiple (and is phrased in a way that suggests you can). Not unambiguously, but if you want clear, direct, unambiguous or requiring no judgment in interpretation, well, 5e ain't a good game lol

[strangebloke]

this really leads to some bizarre attack actions, doesn't it?

Dragonborn bladesinger can breath lightning, cast booming blade.