Literally the way the rules work: The class was replaced. The whole class, including invocations. If you can't understand how a game works, that's on you.
And yet we can still use old subclasses, which were part of the old classes. WotC & DDB haven't been entirely clear on what is & isn't backwards compatible, some things are while others aren't.
If you can point to anything official saying that invocations aren't supposed to be compatible that would be great, until then DDB's position seems to be that they are, and that's about as definitive as we're likely to get.
Literally the way the rules work: The class was replaced. The whole class, including invocations. If you can't understand how a game works, that's on you.
This is obviously wrong. Before you attack others and their understanding of the new rules, you should at the very least have read the rules. From the players Handbook:
"This is the 2024 version of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook. If you’ve read the 2014 version, much of this book will feel familiar, since the fundamental rules of the game are the same. But the book contains many new or redesigned elements, and the versions of things in this book replace versions from older books."
Note that it explicitly says new or redesigned elemente, and that versions of things in this book replace versions from older books. "Replace" has a specific meaning.
Adventurers League, managed and published by Wizards of the Coast, and the official rules that ensures similar play across all tables using it, still explicitly allows everything that hasn't been replaced.
Stop forcing your incorrect interpretation of the rules. Or at the very least, behave, and drop the hostility.
Considering the amount of time they've had to fix it and the fact that they never needed to even try to share features, but could have simply dropped them in as 2024 features? Not a safe assumption to make.
That's a strange argument. There are a lot of PHB 2024 features that still doesn't work. Or are you claiming Agonizing Blast isn't meant to be repeatable? Also, why are you even using DNDBeyond as the official ruling on this? Not only is a lot of this just clearly a technical issue, but DNDBeyond isn't the judge deciding what's legal and what isn't. Your Players Handbook is.
Considering the amount of time they've had to fix it and the fact that they never needed to even try to share features, but could have simply dropped them in as 2024 features? Not a safe assumption to make.
That's a strange argument. There are a lot of PHB 2024 features that still doesn't work. Or are you claiming Agonizing Blast isn't meant to be repeatable? Also, why are you even using DNDBeyond as the official ruling on this? Not only is a lot of this just clearly a technical issue, but DNDBeyond isn't the judge deciding what's legal and what isn't. Your Players Handbook is.
I believe it's actually your DM who decides what is "legal" and what is "not legal"...
Do I think 2014 invocations should work with 2024 ones? Yes.
Do I think they're being prioritized? No, given how much backlog there is.
Do I think they SHOULD be prioritized? Given the backlog of unimplemented concepts extends all the way back to the 2014 PBH, they should probably start from what was promised before the buyout, instead of what I THINK is going on.
Do I think 2014 invocations should work with 2024 ones? Yes.
Do I think they're being prioritized? No, given how much backlog there is.
Do I think they SHOULD be prioritized? Given the backlog of unimplemented concepts extends all the way back to the 2014 PBH, they should probably start from what was promised before the buyout, instead of what I THINK is going on.
Oh, I have little faith that they'll actually be implemented. Unless there's a radical change in management I doubt even the new 2024 features will ever be fully implemented. My point was just that their current absence was entirely down to ddb's incompetence, not because of any incompatibility with the rules.
There's been far too many posts on here from people trying to make excuses for ddb and shut down complaints by insisting thet should only be implementing rules from the new books, and dismissing old content as obsolete, despite the quite emphatic messaging from WotC that it's all 5e and the presence of so much other legacy content on the site.
Considering the amount of time they've had to fix it and the fact that they never needed to even try to share features, but could have simply dropped them in as 2024 features? Not a safe assumption to make.
That's a strange argument. There are a lot of PHB 2024 features that still doesn't work. Or are you claiming Agonizing Blast isn't meant to be repeatable? Also, why are you even using DNDBeyond as the official ruling on this? Not only is a lot of this just clearly a technical issue, but DNDBeyond isn't the judge deciding what's legal and what isn't. Your Players Handbook is.
I believe it's actually your DM who decides what is "legal" and what is "not legal"...
Anything and everything could be legal/illegal. That's why there is a homebrew creator built into DNDBeyond, and a DM can lock or unlock a few different options. DNDBeyond should be built based upon the rulebooks. Not what someone like the guy I responded to above feels should be legal, based on his own opinion, instead of what the books actually says. We need to have that shared basis grounded in Rules as Written, before we start making modifications. I only DM myself. I can ban things I don't like. Right now, we have to implement annoying workarounds to fix a broken system, while some people who haven't read the books are here arguing against implementing the missing features, purely because they don't like them.
But it is quite clear that all the missing features and options are just an issue of resources. We just have to be patient and keep reporting the missing features, and hope they get around to it sooner or later.
This is also visible on character sheets, and it's very misleading given that normally refers to the radius of the area of effect (like it does for e.g. Dawn), but if you read the spell's text, Conjure Celestial's cylinder has a height of 40' but a radius of only 10'. So my guess is this is a bug.
I don't believe a mistake. There is an asterisk (*) after the cylinder icon, meaning 'see text description.' In the description it reads "...10-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range." M misleading only if a person ignores the asterisk.
I don't believe a mistake. There is an asterisk (*) after the cylinder icon, meaning 'see text description.' In the description it reads "...10-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range." M misleading only if a person ignores the asterisk.
The reason it's being called out as a mistake is that other spells with a Cylinder area of effect (such as Call Lightning) list the radius of the cylinder in that section. Having this one spell list the height of the cylinder there while all the others have the radius instead is likely to be confusing for people.
Ideally, all the spells with a Cylinder AoE should list both dimensions there to avoid any confusion.
Would like to point out *again* that you still can't take Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, or Eldritch Spear more than once, despite all three Invocations being labeled as "Repeatable". It *is* possible to take "Lessons of the First Ones" more than once, so I know you're not just supposed to leave the Invocation slots empty.
Would like to point out *again* that you still can't take Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, or Eldritch Spear more than once, despite all three Invocations being labeled as "Repeatable". It *is* possible to take "Lessons of the First Ones" more than once, so I know you're not just supposed to leave the Invocation slots empty.
Lessons of the First Ones was broken (i.e., it wouldn't let you take it more than once) for a long time and only started working fairly recently, which gives me some hope that they are actually looking into and addressing these things, but man it would be nice if they communicated literally anything about this...
Are we ever going to get any official errata for the PHB? I know there are some things that have been quietly updated here on DDB but it would be nice to have an official list somewhere (preferably in PDF format like we used to get).
After updating the PHB on the mobile app, all of the different class pages broke and won't open anymore. Just keeps saying "We couldn't load data for this item"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And yet we can still use old subclasses, which were part of the old classes. WotC & DDB haven't been entirely clear on what is & isn't backwards compatible, some things are while others aren't.
If you can point to anything official saying that invocations aren't supposed to be compatible that would be great, until then DDB's position seems to be that they are, and that's about as definitive as we're likely to get.
As further evidence, here's another post by someone with the title "D&D Beyond Staff" saying that they're working on implementation. It seems unlikely that they'd add this to their already hefty backlog of bugs and missing features if it wasn't supported by the rules. https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/bugs-support/214799-humblewood-tales-bug-and-support?comment=3
This is obviously wrong. Before you attack others and their understanding of the new rules, you should at the very least have read the rules. From the players Handbook:
"This is the 2024 version of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook. If you’ve read the 2014 version, much of this book will feel familiar, since the fundamental rules of the game are the same. But the book contains many new or redesigned elements, and the versions of things in this book replace versions from older books."
Note that it explicitly says new or redesigned elemente, and that versions of things in this book replace versions from older books. "Replace" has a specific meaning.
Adventurers League, managed and published by Wizards of the Coast, and the official rules that ensures similar play across all tables using it, still explicitly allows everything that hasn't been replaced.
Stop forcing your incorrect interpretation of the rules. Or at the very least, behave, and drop the hostility.
That's a strange argument. There are a lot of PHB 2024 features that still doesn't work. Or are you claiming Agonizing Blast isn't meant to be repeatable? Also, why are you even using DNDBeyond as the official ruling on this? Not only is a lot of this just clearly a technical issue, but DNDBeyond isn't the judge deciding what's legal and what isn't. Your Players Handbook is.
I believe it's actually your DM who decides what is "legal" and what is "not legal"...
Do I think 2014 invocations should work with 2024 ones? Yes.
Do I think they're being prioritized? No, given how much backlog there is.
Do I think they SHOULD be prioritized? Given the backlog of unimplemented concepts extends all the way back to the 2014 PBH, they should probably start from what was promised before the buyout, instead of what I THINK is going on.
Oh, I have little faith that they'll actually be implemented. Unless there's a radical change in management I doubt even the new 2024 features will ever be fully implemented. My point was just that their current absence was entirely down to ddb's incompetence, not because of any incompatibility with the rules.
There's been far too many posts on here from people trying to make excuses for ddb and shut down complaints by insisting thet should only be implementing rules from the new books, and dismissing old content as obsolete, despite the quite emphatic messaging from WotC that it's all 5e and the presence of so much other legacy content on the site.
Anything and everything could be legal/illegal. That's why there is a homebrew creator built into DNDBeyond, and a DM can lock or unlock a few different options. DNDBeyond should be built based upon the rulebooks. Not what someone like the guy I responded to above feels should be legal, based on his own opinion, instead of what the books actually says. We need to have that shared basis grounded in Rules as Written, before we start making modifications. I only DM myself. I can ban things I don't like. Right now, we have to implement annoying workarounds to fix a broken system, while some people who haven't read the books are here arguing against implementing the missing features, purely because they don't like them.
But it is quite clear that all the missing features and options are just an issue of resources. We just have to be patient and keep reporting the missing features, and hope they get around to it sooner or later.
You can now add Lessons of the Old Ones multiple times. Fun to find out it works. Sure wish they'd publish a changelog.
Any others confirmed?
Noticed that Conjure Celestial has its area described in the "Range/Area" field as a 40' cylinder here: Conjure Celestial - Spells - D&D Beyond
This is also visible on character sheets, and it's very misleading given that normally refers to the radius of the area of effect (like it does for e.g. Dawn), but if you read the spell's text, Conjure Celestial's cylinder has a height of 40' but a radius of only 10'. So my guess is this is a bug.
I don't believe a mistake. There is an asterisk (*) after the cylinder icon, meaning 'see text description.' In the description it reads "...10-foot-radius, 40-foot-high Cylinder centered on a point within range." M misleading only if a person ignores the asterisk.
The reason it's being called out as a mistake is that other spells with a Cylinder area of effect (such as Call Lightning) list the radius of the cylinder in that section. Having this one spell list the height of the cylinder there while all the others have the radius instead is likely to be confusing for people.
Ideally, all the spells with a Cylinder AoE should list both dimensions there to avoid any confusion.
"Ideally, all the spells with a Cylinder AoE should list both dimensions there to avoid any confusion."
Yes! Agree! Something like: 5'R x 40'H or D10' x H40' !!!!
Still waiting for Echoknight.
Still waiting for Echoknight.
There is a homebrew version of it that is updated for 2024. Type in “echo” and you should be able to find it. It’s word for word a perfect conversion.
Would like to point out *again* that you still can't take Agonizing Blast, Repelling Blast, or Eldritch Spear more than once, despite all three Invocations being labeled as "Repeatable". It *is* possible to take "Lessons of the First Ones" more than once, so I know you're not just supposed to leave the Invocation slots empty.
Lessons of the First Ones was broken (i.e., it wouldn't let you take it more than once) for a long time and only started working fairly recently, which gives me some hope that they are actually looking into and addressing these things, but man it would be nice if they communicated literally anything about this...
Are we ever going to get any official errata for the PHB? I know there are some things that have been quietly updated here on DDB but it would be nice to have an official list somewhere (preferably in PDF format like we used to get).
After updating the PHB on the mobile app, all of the different class pages broke and won't open anymore. Just keeps saying "We couldn't load data for this item"