I don't know why they didn't announce it, though that's probably more about the other changes, which require a thoughtfully written announcement, and it's a holiday weekend in the US.
As for why they made this change, it's probably because the original mechanics were... rather poorly written, and as probably intended lead to some pretty absurd results.
I don't understand them releasing a book with an official race, only to change part of the race not even a month later. I mean, anyone who doesn't use D&D Beyond is going to get their books and immediately play with the written rules, most likely.
Like, I'm upset in two ways:
1. They couldn't even proof read their own work before sending it out, considering it had to be changed
and 2. Now there's another errata to keep track of, which not everyone will even know about.
It's like they tried to do it quietly and quickly swipe it under the rug, but this will just confuse people, especially those who are probably currently playing Hadozee in a campaign.
I get D&D is built so that many functions of the game can be altered, but to "officially" change a race this soon seems so lame, including the backstory of the hadozee being cut out of the Adventures In Space.
Errata documents come out relatively infrequently - about once per year. Wait until the next one comes out before you judge whether they haven't included this change in the errata.
With that being said, it is pretty clear why the mechanics (and really, the lore) should be changed: they shouldn't have made it out the door the way they were written.
Primarily a slightly misguided step to placate some folks who were/are triggered by history. Their background closely mirrored an actual historical background and a review of history and how people evolved is triggering to some. It's pretty easy to take this kind of trigger from fiction, so they did so. I don't fully understand how a background of a people who were treated HORRIBLY at one stage, but rose above that to destroy that which treated them so horribly is bad.
I was one who read the original origin of the race and said "Cool beans, kick the ass of the oppressors', then use his nasty tactics and methods to become so much more!" To me it read as a great success story, to be honest. Overcoming a seemingly impossible obstacle to achieve greater heights. History is history and a LOT of it is ugly. Why it isn't allowed to be ugly in fantasy realms, I don't understand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I'm glad they fixed it but It's kind of nuts that nobody saw that the backstory was problematic. This just confirms what I've suspected ever since I picked up the print edition and the digital here: this thing was a rush job.
I paid a 50% markup for a "three book box set" that has far less content than any other single 5e book. The pages are basically card stock to make the books look thicker. There are 32 sheets of "paper" in each of the three books!
On D&D Beyond, I paid that same markup.
This thing was a rush job. They whipped this together so quickly that they had no time to really flesh it out and build out the world and story. And they clearly didn't have time to have anyone with EDIB sensitivity training proofread it.
I find the previous version less offensive than the confusing new version. What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean? Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,". You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding? If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be less offensive and understandable. Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is NOT offensive. Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage if NOT offensive.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents." What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
I find the previous version less offensive than the confusing new version. What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean? Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,". You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding? If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be less offensive and understandable. Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is NOT offensive. Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage if NOT offensive.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents." What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
It was the lore, not the glide, that was considered offensive.
The glide was mechanically abusable in a way that could enable a Hadozee to turn their 30ft movement into 150ft simply by hopping up and down multiple times. That is why the minimum 10ft fall was added.
They nerfed the heck out of them. Simic don't have to fall 10 feet to jump glide and have other features that make them interesting and relevant. Feet that take a bonus action are interesting but not particularly relevant.
I find the previous version less offensive than the confusing new version. What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean? Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,". You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding? If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be less offensive and understandable. Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is NOT offensive. Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage if NOT offensive.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents." What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
It was the lore, not the glide, that was considered offensive.
The glide was mechanically abusable in a way that could enable a Hadozee to turn their 30ft movement into 150ft simply by hopping up and down multiple times. That is why the minimum 10ft fall was added.
I find the previous version less offensive than the confusing new version. What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean? Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,". You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding? If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be less offensive and understandable. Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is NOT offensive. Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage if NOT offensive.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents." What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
It was the lore, not the glide, that was considered offensive.
The glide was mechanically abusable in a way that could enable a Hadozee to turn their 30ft movement into 150ft simply by hopping up and down multiple times. That is why the minimum 10ft fall was added.
The problem is that they also nerfed the 5 to 1 ratio. There's no reason to take this race over Simic other than roleplay if this stands.
The new glide is poorly worded. I find the previous version understandable and the new version confusing. What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean? Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,"? You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding? If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be understandable and not confusing. Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is good. Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage is good.
I find the changes brought by the sensitivity department to be offensively intolerant.
One of the essential fundamentals of D&D is confronting conflict. Which is anathema to the people in the sensitivity department.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents." What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
This is a very pointed reminder for everyone who makes the choice to participate in this or any thread that they do so under the prevision that they adhere to the site rules and guidelines. I would like to draw particular attention to the following rules:
2c. Spamming and Trolling, particularly
Causing disturbances in forum threads, such as picking fights, making off-topic posts that ruin the thread, insulting other posters.
Making non-constructive posts to de-rail threads.
Abusing the Reported Post feature by sending false alarms or nonsensical messages.
2e. Posting Unsuitable Content, especially
Religious or Political opinions/debates.
Hateful language about race, religion, gender, country (Example: US vs. EU threads), political beliefs, etc.
Actual feedback on Hadozee edits, if this sort of stuff gets passed onto D&D's actual editorial. In the Hadozee write up there's now an inconsistent, or at least incongruous description of the trait "Hadozee" resilience. With all mention of the "Wizard" and the "magical elixir" expurgated, the Hadozee not sort of present themselves much like their "low G / High tree" (tm, midnightplat) predecessors in Star Frontiers. So, when a reader comes to the description of the trait Hadozee resilience, "the magic that runs in your veins" is a mystery. Hadozee are written up to this point as a fairly mundane species so to exhibit the expurgated "magical" nature is sloppy editing and cause for confusion in a reader.
Hey all, I wanted to make sure that I was seeing things clearly in regards to Hadozee as they're printed in the Astral Adventurer's Guide.
Why is there a difference to these when there was no Errata announced?
I don't know why they didn't announce it, though that's probably more about the other changes, which require a thoughtfully written announcement, and it's a holiday weekend in the US.
As for why they made this change, it's probably because the original mechanics were... rather poorly written, and as probably intended lead to some pretty absurd results.
I don't understand them releasing a book with an official race, only to change part of the race not even a month later. I mean, anyone who doesn't use D&D Beyond is going to get their books and immediately play with the written rules, most likely.
Like, I'm upset in two ways:
1. They couldn't even proof read their own work before sending it out, considering it had to be changed
and 2. Now there's another errata to keep track of, which not everyone will even know about.
It's like they tried to do it quietly and quickly swipe it under the rug, but this will just confuse people, especially those who are probably currently playing Hadozee in a campaign.
I get D&D is built so that many functions of the game can be altered, but to "officially" change a race this soon seems so lame, including the backstory of the hadozee being cut out of the Adventures In Space.
Also, they didn't even add the errata change in their own errata notes here on the forum.
Errata documents come out relatively infrequently - about once per year. Wait until the next one comes out before you judge whether they haven't included this change in the errata.
With that being said, it is pretty clear why the mechanics (and really, the lore) should be changed: they shouldn't have made it out the door the way they were written.
This new errata hasn't also been updated to their Book Update list yet But it's fairly recent so give them some time.
Book Updates | Sage Advice | Dungeons & Dragons (wizards.com)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe official errata statement is found here:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/8760-official-wizards-of-the-coast-errata?page=2#c30
and here as a downloadable pdf:
https://media.wizards.com/2022/dnd/downloads/SJA-Errata.pdf
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!"🔊
Primarily a slightly misguided step to placate some folks who were/are triggered by history. Their background closely mirrored an actual historical background and a review of history and how people evolved is triggering to some. It's pretty easy to take this kind of trigger from fiction, so they did so. I don't fully understand how a background of a people who were treated HORRIBLY at one stage, but rose above that to destroy that which treated them so horribly is bad.
I was one who read the original origin of the race and said "Cool beans, kick the ass of the oppressors', then use his nasty tactics and methods to become so much more!" To me it read as a great success story, to be honest. Overcoming a seemingly impossible obstacle to achieve greater heights. History is history and a LOT of it is ugly. Why it isn't allowed to be ugly in fantasy realms, I don't understand.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
They released a statement about what prompted the change.
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/statement-hadozee
I'm glad they fixed it but It's kind of nuts that nobody saw that the backstory was problematic. This just confirms what I've suspected ever since I picked up the print edition and the digital here: this thing was a rush job.
I paid a 50% markup for a "three book box set" that has far less content than any other single 5e book. The pages are basically card stock to make the books look thicker. There are 32 sheets of "paper" in each of the three books!
On D&D Beyond, I paid that same markup.
This thing was a rush job. They whipped this together so quickly that they had no time to really flesh it out and build out the world and story. And they clearly didn't have time to have anyone with EDIB sensitivity training proofread it.
I find the previous version less offensive than the confusing new version.
What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean?
Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,".
You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding?
If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be less offensive and understandable.
Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is NOT offensive.
Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage if NOT offensive.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents."
What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
It was the lore, not the glide, that was considered offensive.
The glide was mechanically abusable in a way that could enable a Hadozee to turn their 30ft movement into 150ft simply by hopping up and down multiple times. That is why the minimum 10ft fall was added.
They nerfed the heck out of them. Simic don't have to fall 10 feet to jump glide and have other features that make them interesting and relevant. Feet that take a bonus action are interesting but not particularly relevant.
Overreaction, imo.
What about the lore was offensive?
The problem is that they also nerfed the 5 to 1 ratio. There's no reason to take this race over Simic other than roleplay if this stands.
The new glide is poorly worded.
I find the previous version understandable and the new version confusing.
What does "When you fall at least 10 feet above the ground," mean?
Was it supposed to say, "When you fall from a height at least 10 feet above the ground,"?
You are aware that "...glide horizontally a number of feet equal to your walking speed..." can imply that you will immediately plumet/fall because you cannot keep gliding?
If it instead said "... you can glide horizontally up to a number of feet equal to your walking speed for every 10 feet you of descend..." then it would be understandable and not confusing.
Heavy armor preventing you from gliding is good.
Reaction to prevent you from taking fall damage is good.
I find the changes brought by the sensitivity department to be offensively intolerant.
One of the essential fundamentals of D&D is confronting conflict.
Which is anathema to the people in the sensitivity department.
What WoTC says, "D&D teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents."
What WoTC does, removes the uniqueness of the races decreasing diversity in D&D.
This is a very pointed reminder for everyone who makes the choice to participate in this or any thread that they do so under the prevision that they adhere to the site rules and guidelines. I would like to draw particular attention to the following rules:
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Actual feedback on Hadozee edits, if this sort of stuff gets passed onto D&D's actual editorial. In the Hadozee write up there's now an inconsistent, or at least incongruous description of the trait "Hadozee" resilience. With all mention of the "Wizard" and the "magical elixir" expurgated, the Hadozee not sort of present themselves much like their "low G / High tree" (tm, midnightplat) predecessors in Star Frontiers. So, when a reader comes to the description of the trait Hadozee resilience, "the magic that runs in your veins" is a mystery. Hadozee are written up to this point as a fairly mundane species so to exhibit the expurgated "magical" nature is sloppy editing and cause for confusion in a reader.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.