Unnamed versions of spells only exist for the Basic Rules/SRD D&D. There are not versions available for spells found outside of the Player's Handbook, however you can homebrew them should you wish.
That's because Tasha's Cauldron of Everything lists the named version, but not the unnamed. Because the book doesn't list the unnamed version, D&D Beyond can't assume/guess that it means that version as well. D&D Beyond can only offer what the rules describe
That's disingenuous. Spells like Telepathic Bond and Tiny Hut are legally established to be the same spells with the copyrighted names removed. To state that they can be substituted in other circumstances but not this, because DND Beyond cannot make that assumption, when there are other places where the spells are substituted one to one makes no sense.
That's disingenuous. Spells like Telepathic Bond and Tiny Hut are legally established to be the same spells with the copyrighted names removed. To state that they can be substituted in other circumstances but not this, because DND Beyond cannot make that assumption, when there are other places where the spells are substituted one to one makes no sense.
Because they were published as such by WotC between the SRD and the PHB. Wizards did not specify that Rary's Telepathic Bond from Tasha's and Telepathic Bond from the SRD are the same spell. As stated D&DB can't just make the unilateral decision that they are, so any gripe you may have with that lies with WotC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
Wizards doesn't need to specify every time that 'yes, this instance of Telepathic Bond is the same as the other instance of Telepathic Bond, which is the version we published for open use.' To claim that there are some places where Wizards doesn't mean for Telepathic Bond to substitute for Rary's Telepathic Bond is ridiculous, and an issue on DDB's end, not Wizards.
Wizards doesn't need to specify every time that 'yes, this instance of Telepathic Bond is the same as the other instance of Telepathic Bond, which is the version we published for open use.' To claim that there are some places where Wizards doesn't mean for Telepathic Bond to substitute for Rary's Telepathic Bond is ridiculous, and an issue on DDB's end, not Wizards.
Well , they shouldn’t need to specify it every time.
2a: something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kinda verdict that had no precedent
b: the convention established by such a precedent or by long practice
3: a person or thing that serves as a model
I mean, if it’s good enough for the legal system, it should be good enough for RAI.
Wizards doesn't need to specify every time that 'yes, this instance of Telepathic Bond is the same as the other instance of Telepathic Bond, which is the version we published for open use.' To claim that there are some places where Wizards doesn't mean for Telepathic Bond to substitute for Rary's Telepathic Bond is ridiculous, and an issue on DDB's end, not Wizards.
Actually, for the purpose of digital toolsets such as D&D Beyond which reproduce the functionality of the game in an automated form with strict adherence to RAW, they do. If Wizards of the Coast says a class or feature gets Named Spell A, but they don't say it gets Unnamed Spell A, that class or feature does not get Unnamed Spell A.
D&D Beyond gives the classes the unnamed versions of spells because the SRD explicitly says they get them, there is no implication or assumption.
If Wizards of the Coast releases and errata or Sage Advice Compendium that states "Yes, whenever you see the named version of a spell, you can also choose to use the SRD version", then D&D Beyond will update to match that. However, as it stands D&D Beyond will always follow RAW as absolutely closely as possible, wherever possible.
Would it be possible to make the unnamed versions of the additional spells from TCoE available for characters to choose from?
I personally don't use the original named spells because they're too long and don't fit in my world.
An example would be the new bard spell Rary's Telepathic Bond and its generic counterpart that I'd like to use Telepathic Bond.
Unnamed versions of spells only exist for the Basic Rules/SRD D&D. There are not versions available for spells found outside of the Player's Handbook, however you can homebrew them should you wish.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I see, but Telepathic Bond is in the Basic Rules. It's just unavailable through additional spells.
That's because Tasha's Cauldron of Everything lists the named version, but not the unnamed. Because the book doesn't list the unnamed version, D&D Beyond can't assume/guess that it means that version as well. D&D Beyond can only offer what the rules describe
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
That's disingenuous. Spells like Telepathic Bond and Tiny Hut are legally established to be the same spells with the copyrighted names removed. To state that they can be substituted in other circumstances but not this, because DND Beyond cannot make that assumption, when there are other places where the spells are substituted one to one makes no sense.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Because they were published as such by WotC between the SRD and the PHB. Wizards did not specify that Rary's Telepathic Bond from Tasha's and Telepathic Bond from the SRD are the same spell. As stated D&DB can't just make the unilateral decision that they are, so any gripe you may have with that lies with WotC.
Lightning Strike - A rebranded Fire Bolt for Wizards & Sorcerers.
Spirit Bomb - A holy fireball for Clerics, Paladins, & Divine Soul Sorcerers!
Sword Dancer - A Cleric subclass specifically for the Drow goddess Eilistraee.
Quicksilver & The Scarlet Witch - A pair of magical firearms for your Gunslinger or Artificer.
Wizards doesn't need to specify every time that 'yes, this instance of Telepathic Bond is the same as the other instance of Telepathic Bond, which is the version we published for open use.' To claim that there are some places where Wizards doesn't mean for Telepathic Bond to substitute for Rary's Telepathic Bond is ridiculous, and an issue on DDB's end, not Wizards.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Well , they shouldn’t need to specify it every time.
I mean, if it’s good enough for the legal system, it should be good enough for RAI.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Actually, for the purpose of digital toolsets such as D&D Beyond which reproduce the functionality of the game in an automated form with strict adherence to RAW, they do. If Wizards of the Coast says a class or feature gets Named Spell A, but they don't say it gets Unnamed Spell A, that class or feature does not get Unnamed Spell A.
D&D Beyond gives the classes the unnamed versions of spells because the SRD explicitly says they get them, there is no implication or assumption.
If Wizards of the Coast releases and errata or Sage Advice Compendium that states "Yes, whenever you see the named version of a spell, you can also choose to use the SRD version", then D&D Beyond will update to match that. However, as it stands D&D Beyond will always follow RAW as absolutely closely as possible, wherever possible.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here