I understand that the final section wasn't delivered until just two weeks ago, so the digital portions in the character builder will not be completed until a further date. However, will the digital book itself be ready for reading by launch?
I understand that the final section wasn't delivered until just two weeks ago, so the digital portions in the character builder will not be completed until a further date. However, will the digital book itself be ready for reading by launch?
They all have been so far. Why would this one be different?
The only reason I ask is, again, they received the last section of the book, only 2 weeks ago.
I have not seen anything indicating that, not that you're wrong, but the digital books have all been released when they said they were going to be. I'm sure DND Beyond would let us know, since several people have pre-ordered it, if it was going to be late.
The only reason I ask is, again, they received the last section of the book, only 2 weeks ago.
I have not seen anything indicating that, not that you're wrong, but the digital books have all been released when they said they were going to be. I'm sure DND Beyond would let us know, since several people have pre-ordered it, if it was going to be late.
Adam mentioned that there's a chance that certain things won't be in the character builder on launch due receiving them only 2 weeks ago. While they had been building the class feature variants before getting the info, the chances were so significant he hinted it might not be done on time.
But to the OP - the whole book will be available even is all the stuff isn't program for the character builder. Look at MOoT - we have access to the supernatural gifts via sourcebook, but they aren't in the builder.
Adam mentioned the timeline so we understood why certain things wouldn't be ready for character sheets, but the compendium is not all encompassing that receiving a paragraph of text 2 weeks ago is impossible to put into the website for reading.
The digital compendium is all built, has been through QA and is looking good. Unless there is some massive unforeseen issue, it will be available to you on time, as planned! 😊
I heard Tasha's will change Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade to have a cost value for the weapon used. Playing a Hex Blade Warlock with the Pact of the Blade feature, a summoned blade has no value and therefore can't be used with these spells any more? Sorry, that seems broken to me when I lose damage potential related to a foundational class ability.
Booming blade and green flame blade have already been errata'd to require a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. Yes, this does 'break' one niche use when trying to use either spell with one of the few zero cost weapons in the game. The intent was to fix the more prevalent issue where the old wording allowed you to make the attack without any kind of weapon by using a spell focus instead; a foci can replace any material component that isn't stated to have a cost or consumed. Ergo with the old wording, you could booming/green flame blade with a wand/staff/orb/symbol/rod etc.
Booming blade and green flame blade have already been errata'd to require a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. Yes, this does 'break' one niche use when trying to use either spell with one of the few zero cost weapons in the game. The intent was to fix the more prevalent issue where the old wording allowed you to make the attack without any kind of weapon by using a spell focus instead; a foci can replace any material component that isn't stated to have a cost or consumed. Ergo with the old wording, you could booming/green flame blade with a wand/staff/orb/symbol/rod etc.
I was unaware of this nerf. You already couldn't cast those spells using your focus since it is not a "weapon used in the spell’s casting."
So now you can't use shadow blade or improvised weapons per RAW? At least magic weapons have definite assigned values that no one will ever ask about in regards to this errata.
Booming blade and green flame blade have already been errata'd to require a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. Yes, this does 'break' one niche use when trying to use either spell with one of the few zero cost weapons in the game. The intent was to fix the more prevalent issue where the old wording allowed you to make the attack without any kind of weapon by using a spell focus instead; a foci can replace any material component that isn't stated to have a cost or consumed. Ergo with the old wording, you could booming/green flame blade with a wand/staff/orb/symbol/rod etc.
I was unaware of this nerf. You already couldn't cast those spells using your focus since it is not a "weapon used in the spell’s casting."
So now you can't use shadow blade or improvised weapons per RAW? At least magic weapons have definite assigned values that no one will ever ask about in regards to this errata.
Correct, per RAW you can no longer use Shadow Blade.
As far as I can tell: Improvised Weapons, so long as the item they are based on has a value of 1 sp or more, is still fair game. Example, I take my shield to shield bash someone, I could BB with it since, in the instance it is being used as a weapon, it is a weapon of 10 gp value. Crawford has also stated that other things (presumably referring to improvised weapons) would need a value assigned by the DM if it isn't defined... so I'd still say do it anyway, stuff it to the rules in this case.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I heard Tasha's will change Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade to have a cost value for the weapon used. Playing a Hex Blade Warlock with the Pact of the Blade feature, a summoned blade has no value and therefore can't be used with these spells any more? Sorry, that seems broken to me when I lose damage potential related to a foundational class ability.
Crawford has clarified that weapons created by the Pact of the Blade feature have their normal value according to PHB Chapter 5.
Booming blade and green flame blade have already been errata'd to require a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. Yes, this does 'break' one niche use when trying to use either spell with one of the few zero cost weapons in the game. The intent was to fix the more prevalent issue where the old wording allowed you to make the attack without any kind of weapon by using a spell focus instead; a foci can replace any material component that isn't stated to have a cost or consumed. Ergo with the old wording, you could booming/green flame blade with a wand/staff/orb/symbol/rod etc.
I was unaware of this nerf. You already couldn't cast those spells using your focus since it is not a "weapon used in the spell’s casting."
So now you can't use shadow blade or improvised weapons per RAW? At least magic weapons have definite assigned values that no one will ever ask about in regards to this errata.
Correct, per RAW you can no longer use Shadow Blade.
As far as I can tell: Improvised Weapons, so long as the item they are based on has a value of 1 sp or more, is still fair game. Example, I take my shield to shield bash someone, I could BB with it since, in the instance it is being used as a weapon, it is a weapon of 10 gp value.
What about a Rod of the Pact Keeper used as an improvised club? It’s an Uncommon or rarer Magic Item, which assumes a certain value in GP, most likely in excess of 500 gp. However, there is no officially listed gp value. What if it was a Pact Weapon? Or a Hex Weapon? Or both?
For that matter, a Flame Tongue has no listed gp value.
Crawford also clarified that RAW is that the DM assign an ad hoc value to anything that requires a value for some rule or another but doesn't have one listed.
The fact that it's up to the DM doesn't mean it isn't RAW.
Crawford also clarified that RAW is that the DM assign an ad hoc value to anything that requires a value for some rule or another but doesn't have one listed.
The fact that it's up to the DM doesn't mean it isn't RAW.
The more Crawford says about these things, the more it sounds like he’s trying to walk back changes he just made to something that didn’t need these changes in the first place.
Crawford also clarified that RAW is that the DM assign an ad hoc value to anything that requires a value for some rule or another but doesn't have one listed.
The fact that it's up to the DM doesn't mean it isn't RAW.
The more Crawford says about these things, the more it sounds like he’s trying to walk back changes he just made to something that didn’t need these changes in the first place.
I think it's less "walking back" and more "realizing the changes we made suggest an impact we didn't anticipate or intend." I'm still very befuddled by these changes; I don't think they were necessary, and I'm having trouble figuring out exactly why they were made. But I don't think it's accurate to ascribe that much intention to the changes. For one thing, I think we can all agree they didn't really think that hard about what they were doing!
Booming blade and green flame blade have already been errata'd to require a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. Yes, this does 'break' one niche use when trying to use either spell with one of the few zero cost weapons in the game. The intent was to fix the more prevalent issue where the old wording allowed you to make the attack without any kind of weapon by using a spell focus instead; a foci can replace any material component that isn't stated to have a cost or consumed. Ergo with the old wording, you could booming/green flame blade with a wand/staff/orb/symbol/rod etc.
I was unaware of this nerf. You already couldn't cast those spells using your focus since it is not a "weapon used in the spell’s casting."
So now you can't use shadow blade or improvised weapons per RAW? At least magic weapons have definite assigned values that no one will ever ask about in regards to this errata.
Correct, per RAW you can no longer use Shadow Blade.
As far as I can tell: Improvised Weapons, so long as the item they are based on has a value of 1 sp or more, is still fair game. Example, I take my shield to shield bash someone, I could BB with it since, in the instance it is being used as a weapon, it is a weapon of 10 gp value.
What about a Rod of the Pact Keeper used as an improvised club? It’s an Uncommon or rarer Magic Item, which assumes a certain value in GP, most likely in excess of 500 gp. However, there is no officially listed gp value. What if it was a Pact Weapon? Or a Hex Weapon? Or both?
For that matter, a Flame Tongue has no listed gp value.
Crawford also confirmed that Pact Weapons (specifically conjured ones) use the same values as those provided by the Equipment list in the PHB, so if you conjure a longsword, you can BB. He has also stated that all magical weapons have an assumed value of at least equal to their base counterpart, so a Flame Tongue longsword is considered to have the same (or greater) value as the base longsword.
Rod of the Pact Keeper, being a magic item, has a value in excess of 500 gp, so you could BB with it as an improvised weapon. (this is my interpretation)
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
It basically comes down to this errata making the spells less fun and less clear, which is the opposite of what erratas are for. Bad errata.
The thing with Shadow Blade is that it clearly states the blade is made out of solidified gloom, is an illusion school spell, and it doesn't do actual physical damage, it does psychic damage.
From a DM perspective I myself would have disallowed Shadow Blade to be used with Booming Blade / Green Flame Blade for that reason alone. Now, before anyone jumps on me, the reason is actually quite clear to the fact that its an illusion and affects the mind when it does damage, that is what psychic damage is. Yes the spell says "It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." However, that there says to me that the weapon you have created from the shadows can be used by you with proficiency, since none of those who can cast Shadow Blade get proficiency with a sword of any kind. So too many factors there would have made Shadow Blade ineligible in my game to be used with Booming Blade. Not to mention the scaling affect of the Psychic dmg on character level, something which a normal melee weapon doesn't have, outside of an ability that causes it to scale such as a monk's Martial Arts.
Pact of the Blade works differently because you are not creating the blade from shadow, but creating an actual weapon, which if you were feeling really game could try and sell it to someone, get the value you sold it for, then simply walk away and once out of sight simply call it back to yourself. Of course you could only do that once or twice and never to the same person twice, before you have the town watch chasing after you to look for said weapon, which because of the nature of the PotB you can hide from their sight.
So to be honest I was surprised an errata for Booming Blade / Green Flame Blade on the material side hadn't come out sooner.
Crawford also clarified that RAW is that the DM assign an ad hoc value to anything that requires a value for some rule or another but doesn't have one listed.
The fact that it's up to the DM doesn't mean it isn't RAW.
The more Crawford says about these things, the more it sounds like he’s trying to walk back changes he just made to something that didn’t need these changes in the first place.
I think it's less "walking back" and more "realizing the changes we made suggest an impact we didn't anticipate or intend." I'm still very befuddled by these changes; I don't think they were necessary, and I'm having trouble figuring out exactly why they were made. But I don't think it's accurate to ascribe that much intention to the changes. For one thing, I think we can all agree they didn't really think that hard about what they were doing!
I disagree. I think these errata were specifically designed to change all of this stuff, but once they realized how unhappy they made everyone then Crawford started doing the fanciest backpedaling possible to explain how these errata actually change nothing. The amount of time and expense involved is ridiculous for doing nothing at all. I mean, just the costs to have the SCAG adjusted and reprinted is enough. Sure, they were doing it for the Bladesinger anyway, but if these errata to these spells were actually intended to change nothing, why do them?
I understand that the final section wasn't delivered until just two weeks ago, so the digital portions in the character builder will not be completed until a further date. However, will the digital book itself be ready for reading by launch?
Let the Mists surround you...
They all have been so far. Why would this one be different?
The only reason I ask is, again, they received the last section of the book, only 2 weeks ago.
Let the Mists surround you...
I have not seen anything indicating that, not that you're wrong, but the digital books have all been released when they said they were going to be. I'm sure DND Beyond would let us know, since several people have pre-ordered it, if it was going to be late.
Adam mentioned that there's a chance that certain things won't be in the character builder on launch due receiving them only 2 weeks ago. While they had been building the class feature variants before getting the info, the chances were so significant he hinted it might not be done on time.
But to the OP - the whole book will be available even is all the stuff isn't program for the character builder. Look at MOoT - we have access to the supernatural gifts via sourcebook, but they aren't in the builder.
Adam mentioned the timeline so we understood why certain things wouldn't be ready for character sheets, but the compendium is not all encompassing that receiving a paragraph of text 2 weeks ago is impossible to put into the website for reading.
Awesome. I, like many others, am very excited for this book. I can hardly wait to see what druidic goodies I'll find :)
Let the Mists surround you...
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe digital compendium is all built, has been through QA and is looking good. Unless there is some massive unforeseen issue, it will be available to you on time, as planned! 😊
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I heard Tasha's will change Green Flame Blade and Booming Blade to have a cost value for the weapon used. Playing a Hex Blade Warlock with the Pact of the Blade feature, a summoned blade has no value and therefore can't be used with these spells any more? Sorry, that seems broken to me when I lose damage potential related to a foundational class ability.
Booming blade and green flame blade have already been errata'd to require a melee weapon worth at least 1 sp. Yes, this does 'break' one niche use when trying to use either spell with one of the few zero cost weapons in the game. The intent was to fix the more prevalent issue where the old wording allowed you to make the attack without any kind of weapon by using a spell focus instead; a foci can replace any material component that isn't stated to have a cost or consumed. Ergo with the old wording, you could booming/green flame blade with a wand/staff/orb/symbol/rod etc.
Jeremy Crawford has confirmed that shadow blade does not have a value per RAW, but the DM can also make a ruling on the value on any such weapon in such circumstances.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I was unaware of this nerf. You already couldn't cast those spells using your focus since it is not a "weapon used in the spell’s casting."
So now you can't use shadow blade or improvised weapons per RAW? At least magic weapons have definite assigned values that no one will ever ask about in regards to this errata.
Correct, per RAW you can no longer use Shadow Blade.
As far as I can tell: Improvised Weapons, so long as the item they are based on has a value of 1 sp or more, is still fair game. Example, I take my shield to shield bash someone, I could BB with it since, in the instance it is being used as a weapon, it is a weapon of 10 gp value. Crawford has also stated that other things (presumably referring to improvised weapons) would need a value assigned by the DM if it isn't defined... so I'd still say do it anyway, stuff it to the rules in this case.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Crawford has clarified that weapons created by the Pact of the Blade feature have their normal value according to PHB Chapter 5.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326586049888362496
What about a Rod of the Pact Keeper used as an improvised club? It’s an Uncommon or rarer Magic Item, which assumes a certain value in GP, most likely in excess of 500 gp. However, there is no officially listed gp value. What if it was a Pact Weapon? Or a Hex Weapon? Or both?
For that matter, a Flame Tongue has no listed gp value.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Crawford also clarified that RAW is that the DM assign an ad hoc value to anything that requires a value for some rule or another but doesn't have one listed.
The fact that it's up to the DM doesn't mean it isn't RAW.
The more Crawford says about these things, the more it sounds like he’s trying to walk back changes he just made to something that didn’t need these changes in the first place.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think it's less "walking back" and more "realizing the changes we made suggest an impact we didn't anticipate or intend." I'm still very befuddled by these changes; I don't think they were necessary, and I'm having trouble figuring out exactly why they were made. But I don't think it's accurate to ascribe that much intention to the changes. For one thing, I think we can all agree they didn't really think that hard about what they were doing!
Crawford also confirmed that Pact Weapons (specifically conjured ones) use the same values as those provided by the Equipment list in the PHB, so if you conjure a longsword, you can BB. He has also stated that all magical weapons have an assumed value of at least equal to their base counterpart, so a Flame Tongue longsword is considered to have the same (or greater) value as the base longsword.
Rod of the Pact Keeper, being a magic item, has a value in excess of 500 gp, so you could BB with it as an improvised weapon. (this is my interpretation)
Edit: Source on the Pact Weapons: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326586049888362496
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
It basically comes down to this errata making the spells less fun and less clear, which is the opposite of what erratas are for. Bad errata.
The thing with Shadow Blade is that it clearly states the blade is made out of solidified gloom, is an illusion school spell, and it doesn't do actual physical damage, it does psychic damage.
From a DM perspective I myself would have disallowed Shadow Blade to be used with Booming Blade / Green Flame Blade for that reason alone. Now, before anyone jumps on me, the reason is actually quite clear to the fact that its an illusion and affects the mind when it does damage, that is what psychic damage is. Yes the spell says "It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient." However, that there says to me that the weapon you have created from the shadows can be used by you with proficiency, since none of those who can cast Shadow Blade get proficiency with a sword of any kind. So too many factors there would have made Shadow Blade ineligible in my game to be used with Booming Blade. Not to mention the scaling affect of the Psychic dmg on character level, something which a normal melee weapon doesn't have, outside of an ability that causes it to scale such as a monk's Martial Arts.
Pact of the Blade works differently because you are not creating the blade from shadow, but creating an actual weapon, which if you were feeling really game could try and sell it to someone, get the value you sold it for, then simply walk away and once out of sight simply call it back to yourself. Of course you could only do that once or twice and never to the same person twice, before you have the town watch chasing after you to look for said weapon, which because of the nature of the PotB you can hide from their sight.
So to be honest I was surprised an errata for Booming Blade / Green Flame Blade on the material side hadn't come out sooner.
I disagree. I think these errata were specifically designed to change all of this stuff, but once they realized how unhappy they made everyone then Crawford started doing the fanciest backpedaling possible to explain how these errata actually change nothing. The amount of time and expense involved is ridiculous for doing nothing at all. I mean, just the costs to have the SCAG adjusted and reprinted is enough. Sure, they were doing it for the Bladesinger anyway, but if these errata to these spells were actually intended to change nothing, why do them?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting