D'oh - that's what happens when I get too excited about making a new character before finishing the chapter. Thanks for the correction!
Not a problem. I probably coulda sounded less like a dick about it too, so sorry about that!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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!"
I’m not sure about all human Variant but I did discover that there is contradictory information about this variant.
Mark of Handling Human
Racial Traits +1 to All Ability Scores, Extra Language
however when you choose this race you only get a +2 modifier to wisdom and a plus one to any other ability score. So which is it plus one to all ability scores or +2 to wisdom and +1 to another ability score or both?
I’m not sure about all human Variant but I did discover that there is contradictory information about this variant.
Mark of Handling Human
Racial Traits +1 to All Ability Scores, Extra Language
however when you choose this race you only get a +2 modifier to wisdom and a plus one to any other ability score. So which is it plus one to all ability scores or +2 to wisdom and +1 to another ability score or both?
The racial traits shown there are for the base human race. Any variants are a modification from that.
The problem is that it is the headline on the race overview. It is contradictory to what you actually get therefore shouldn’t be listed that way. The information could be removed and proper information provided or just list ability score increase and then when you have selected the race you would see what the ability score increase is or it could’ve been done like they did for the human variant which properly explains what you get.
Racial Traits +1 to All Ability Scores, Extra Language
If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from the Player’s Handbook, your Dungeon Master might allow these variant traits, all of which replace the human’s Ability Score Increase trait.
never enough time to do it right always time to do it again
Broken since they released it. First post by StormKnight goes into this. Hopefully, someday in the future it will be "modeled correctly". A lot of us frustrated over the paying for something that doesn't work, but not much to do about it besides read the replies in this thread that talk about a workaround with Home Brew.
The bonus spells added to the list of spells known for Dragonmarked variant species if you have the spellcasting/pact magic feature do not appear.
For example A Bard elf with mark of shadow variant does not have the darkness or pass without trace spells appear in their second level spell list. The first level spells(disguise self, Silent image) appear but they were already Bard spells.
Another example: I made an Artificer human mark of making variant and while Identify(already an artificer spell) appears Tensors floating disk does not.
The bonus spells added to the list of spells known for Dragonmarked variant species if you have the spellcasting/pact magic feature do not appear.
For example A Bard elf with mark of shadow variant does not have the darkness or pass without trace spells appear in their second level spell list. The first level spells(disguise self, Silent image) appear but they were already Bard spells.
Another example: I made an Artificer human mark of making variant and while Identify(already an artificer spell) appears Tensors floating disk does not.
This is covered in the very first post of this thread, under races. They haven't been able to model spells of the mark properly yet. The work around for the moment is to homebrew the spells in question and add the spell to the spell lists of any casters that don't already have it yet. So, for example, you could make a copy of darkness, rename it darkness-mark of shadow (or Mark of Shadow-Darkness) and then add bard (and any other missing classes) to the "Available for Classes" box. In the case of darkness, I would remove the specific subclass references for oathbreaker paladin, twilight cleric and land (swamp) druid and add paladin, cleric, and druid. It took me a minute or two to make those changes, which are simple and don't get deep into the weeds of homebrew fields and settings.
The repeating shot crossbow no longer appears, either in my mobile app or as an item my character can add to their inventory. I did check, and Eberron content is enabled for the character.
A character who already had one equipped still has it, so presumably the item still exists somewhere on DnD Beyond.
The repeating shot crossbow no longer appears, either in my mobile app or as an item my character can add to their inventory. I did check, and Eberron content is enabled for the character.
A character who already had one equipped still has it, so presumably the item still exists somewhere on DnD Beyond.
Hello!
The repeating shot crossbow was never an official item, but was entered as an item on D&D Beyond to help make the Unearthed Arcana (playtest) version of the Artificer function. Now the Artificer is official, the Infusions it creates have their own section of the character sheet where the Artificer can build them.
just make a custome version of the spells on the list that are usable by all classes and name it Mark of Sentinel (name of spell) the mark doesnt give you extra slots to cast them or let you cast them ones a day but just adds them to your spell list so this is an easy work around.
Has there been any announcement about having an official way to have infusions on your non-artificer party it is it strictly via customizing the item entry/making a homebrewed magical item as a kludge?
Repeating shot doesn't work with critical role firearms
Yes, this is correct.
The Repeating Shot infusion only functions on weapons that have the ammunition weapon property. The Gunslinger firearms from critical role do not have that weapon property. If an updated version of those weapons are released, that includes the ammunition property, then we will update accordingly.
Ammunition is a property listed on all critical role firearms in the description in the same bold font and format as the other properties listed in the weapon stats. I see no reason that they should not at least function as a selectable item for the repeating shot infusion.
Ammunition is a property listed on all critical role firearms in the description in the same bold font and format as the other properties listed in the weapon stats. I see no reason that they should not at least function as a selectable item for the repeating shot infusion.
Please can you provide a source for this? The gunslinger rules have a table of firearms that lists the weapon properties, in the same way that weapons are listed in the Player's Handbook.
Ammunition is a property listed on all critical role firearms in the description in the same bold font and format as the other properties listed in the weapon stats. I see no reason that they should not at least function as a selectable item for the repeating shot infusion.
Please can you provide a source for this? The gunslinger rules have a table of firearms that lists the weapon properties, in the same way that weapons are listed in the Player's Handbook.
Note that the subsection discussing ammunition is not the same as the weapons having the specific weapon property of ammunition.
As mentioned before, if an update is issued for these weapons, that adds this weapon property, we'll update them on the system.
The ammunition property isn't listed in in the property column for any weapon in the gunslinger's weapon table. Nonetheless, the crit roll ammunition property reads:
Ammunition
All firearms require ammunition to make an attack, and due to their rare nature, ammunition may be near impossible to find or purchase. However, if materials are gathered, you can craft ammunition yourself using your Tinker’s Tools at half the cost. Each firearm uses its own unique ammunition and is generally sold or crafted in batches listed below next to the price.
While not present for any weapon on the table, all crit roll firearms have the property.
Unfortunately, regardless of the descriptive text you quoted, at no point are the weapons defined as having the ammunition weapon property.
I appreciate that the intent may have been for them to have that weapon property, but that is not what it says.
It is vitally important that D&D Beyond presents the rules as written (RAW) rather than choosing to interpret the rules and present them as we feel they may have been meant (RAI).
As I said earlier, if the Gunslinger rules are updated to state the weapons have the ammunition property, then we'll update.
It is important to distinguish a description from the property.
Heavy and Light weapons don’t necessarily have to weigh a lot or very little - the property has nothing to do with how strong a character is or how much an item weighs. These properties describe specific interactions with rules.
As such, requiring ammunition and having the ammunition property mean entirely two different things. Describing the weapon as using ammunition is fluff and open to GM interpretation. Declaring a weapon with the ammunition property specifically conveys the following:
1) You need enough ammunition on hand to make a ranged (only) attack. You need a hand free to load the ammunition as part of your attack.
2) At the end of combat, you regain 1/2 of your used ammo at the end of a minute search.
Should they have the ammunition property? You could make that argument and I’d counter there’s little likelihood you’ll recover a bullet that missed. But DND Beyond presents the rules as published (aka RAW) because they are a publisher of what the rules are, not what they should be.
If you disagree with the rules as written you have three options. You can write your own rules and be on your merry, as gamers and DMs since time immemorial have done. You can ignore the rules, and just do what you think the rules ought to say. Or you can petition the designer or author of those rules to issue an errata or correction.
Arguing with D&DBeyond staff unfortunately won’t change their position which is a neutral party on the validity of any rule.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
D'oh - that's what happens when I get too excited about making a new character before finishing the chapter. Thanks for the correction!
Not a problem. I probably coulda sounded less like a dick about it too, so sorry about that!
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!"
I’m not sure about all human Variant but I did discover that there is contradictory information about this variant.
Racial Traits
+1 to All Ability Scores, Extra Language
however when you choose this race you only get a +2 modifier to wisdom and a plus one to any other ability score. So which is it plus one to all ability scores or +2 to wisdom and +1 to another ability score or both?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe racial traits shown there are for the base human race. Any variants are a modification from that.
The problem is that it is the headline on the race overview. It is contradictory to what you actually get therefore shouldn’t be listed that way. The information could be removed and proper information provided or just list ability score increase and then when you have selected the race you would see what the ability score increase is or it could’ve been done like they did for the human variant which properly explains what you get.
Racial Traits
+1 to All Ability Scores, Extra Language
If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from the Player’s Handbook, your Dungeon Master might allow these variant traits, all of which replace the human’s Ability Score Increase trait.
never enough time to do it right always time to do it again
I'm wondering why I can't choose any Mark of Sentinel spells for my character's prepared spells?
Broken since they released it. First post by StormKnight goes into this. Hopefully, someday in the future it will be "modeled correctly". A lot of us frustrated over the paying for something that doesn't work, but not much to do about it besides read the replies in this thread that talk about a workaround with Home Brew.
The bonus spells added to the list of spells known for Dragonmarked variant species if you have the spellcasting/pact magic feature do not appear.
For example A Bard elf with mark of shadow variant does not have the darkness or pass without trace spells appear in their second level spell list. The first level spells(disguise self, Silent image) appear but they were already Bard spells.
Another example: I made an Artificer human mark of making variant and while Identify(already an artificer spell) appears Tensors floating disk does not.
This is covered in the very first post of this thread, under races. They haven't been able to model spells of the mark properly yet. The work around for the moment is to homebrew the spells in question and add the spell to the spell lists of any casters that don't already have it yet. So, for example, you could make a copy of darkness, rename it darkness-mark of shadow (or Mark of Shadow-Darkness) and then add bard (and any other missing classes) to the "Available for Classes" box. In the case of darkness, I would remove the specific subclass references for oathbreaker paladin, twilight cleric and land (swamp) druid and add paladin, cleric, and druid. It took me a minute or two to make those changes, which are simple and don't get deep into the weeds of homebrew fields and settings.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
The repeating shot crossbow no longer appears, either in my mobile app or as an item my character can add to their inventory. I did check, and Eberron content is enabled for the character.
A character who already had one equipped still has it, so presumably the item still exists somewhere on DnD Beyond.
Hello!
The repeating shot crossbow was never an official item, but was entered as an item on D&D Beyond to help make the Unearthed Arcana (playtest) version of the Artificer function. Now the Artificer is official, the Infusions it creates have their own section of the character sheet where the Artificer can build them.
just make a custome version of the spells on the list that are usable by all classes and name it Mark of Sentinel (name of spell) the mark doesnt give you extra slots to cast them or let you cast them ones a day but just adds them to your spell list so this is an easy work around.
Has there been any announcement about having an official way to have infusions on your non-artificer party it is it strictly via customizing the item entry/making a homebrewed magical item as a kludge?
Repeating shot doesn't work with critical role firearms
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersYes, this is correct.
The Repeating Shot infusion only functions on weapons that have the ammunition weapon property. The Gunslinger firearms from critical role do not have that weapon property. If an updated version of those weapons are released, that includes the ammunition property, then we will update accordingly.
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!"🔊
Ammunition is a property listed on all critical role firearms in the description in the same bold font and format as the other properties listed in the weapon stats. I see no reason that they should not at least function as a selectable item for the repeating shot infusion.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPlease can you provide a source for this? The gunslinger rules have a table of firearms that lists the weapon properties, in the same way that weapons are listed in the Player's Handbook.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/classes/fighter#Gunsmith-39826
Note that the subsection discussing ammunition is not the same as the weapons having the specific weapon property of ammunition.
As mentioned before, if an update is issued for these weapons, that adds this weapon property, we'll update them on the system.
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!"🔊
The ammunition property isn't listed in in the property column for any weapon in the gunslinger's weapon table. Nonetheless, the crit roll ammunition property reads:
While not present for any weapon on the table, all crit roll firearms have the property.
Ongoing Projects: The Mimic Book of Mimics :: SHARK WEEK
Completed Projects: The Trick-or-Treat Table
My Homebrews: Races :: Classes :: Spells :: Items :: Monsters
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersUnfortunately, regardless of the descriptive text you quoted, at no point are the weapons defined as having the ammunition weapon property.
I appreciate that the intent may have been for them to have that weapon property, but that is not what it says.
It is vitally important that D&D Beyond presents the rules as written (RAW) rather than choosing to interpret the rules and present them as we feel they may have been meant (RAI).
As I said earlier, if the Gunslinger rules are updated to state the weapons have the ammunition property, then we'll update.
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!"🔊
As such, requiring ammunition and having the ammunition property mean entirely two different things. Describing the weapon as using ammunition is fluff and open to GM interpretation. Declaring a weapon with the ammunition property specifically conveys the following:
If you disagree with the rules as written you have three options. You can write your own rules and be on your merry, as gamers and DMs since time immemorial have done. You can ignore the rules, and just do what you think the rules ought to say. Or you can petition the designer or author of those rules to issue an errata or correction.