From everything I have seen so far, there will be only one completely new creature, a telepathic teleporting fey dolphin. Every monster from VGtM and MToF will be in the book except for the Volo's orcs, but it sounds like they're not just going to be reorganized stat blocks. They're most likely going to adjust the CR, HP, and damage dials and the spellcasting will be streamlined, with several spells reinvented as special magical actions. A lot of the lore will be new and several will have new art.
As for the races, all but the two Witchlight ones will have alterations. Aasimar and shifters each have been combined into one stat block, with a selection of options replacing the separate subraces. For the elves magical sleep immunity has been moved to Trance and the goblinoids all have gained Fey Ancestry. The hobgoblin and kobold resemble their latest UA versions. All natural weapons now deal d6 damage and are considered unarmed strikes. Innate spellcasting now gives you a choice of WIS, INT, or CHA as the ability and they have the option of casting the spells with spell slots. As expected, the ASIs and languages have been separated and all the tool and weapon proficiencies have been removed. The Aasimar, Changeling, Genesi, Tabaxi, Tortle, Yuan-ti and Kenku can now be small. All speeds lower than 30 feet are now 30 feet, and climbing, swimming, and flying speeds are equal to walking speed. Negative traits like sunlight sensitivity are gone. Short rest abilities are now PB times per long rest. Spells that aren't in the PHB have been replaced. The deep gnome feat has been merged into its stat block and several races have new abilities. The biggest changes that some people seem not to like is that the kobold no longer has pack tactics and the lizardfolk doesn't have cunning artisan (that can easily be roleplayed with the DM's green light though). Kenku no longer have to mimic sounds to speak but feel free to keep making random noises if you want to. Several traits are the same with new names. If you want all the details look for u/KingJackel's write up on Reddit.
I really like most of what they changed, and even the ones I do not care for I can at least understand the reasoning behind them. I finished homebrewing them all and am now starting to tinker with the PHB races with the changes I am expecting to happen in 2024 based on what they did in M3. Human is the only one I'm really at a loss about how it will be handled, but unless it's completely redesigned I'm guessing that the ASI options will include (+2,+2+1) and (+2,+1,+1,+1). If that's the case I'll be playing more human monks and rangers in the future.
"with several spells reinvented as special magical actions."
And this is the part I profoundly loath.
Why?
Legitimately curious: what's the issue with "Magical Actions" over spells? Tracking a spellcaster's stuff in the thick of combat as a DM, with all the spellcaster's minions also doing shit and having to keep track of what all the players are doing too, sucks. Honestly, the idea of 'Magical Actions' that don't count as spells but are still intrinsically casty is a cool one, and something I'd honestly be looking into back-hacking into the PC rules. It's a lot like cantrips, save without the underlying assumption that all cantrips need to be weak and ineffectual to the point of pointlessness that so many people carry around.
Is this the thing where players can't Counterspell a caster-type enemy into total impotence anymore? That's a distinct benefit, not a drawback. Counterspell is dumb and bad, it's actively harmful to D&D. To the point where I'm very seriously considering removing it entirely from future games I run because it brings nothing worth having to the game, and simply finding some other way to compensate Abjuration wizards if anyone but me ever plays one. Hell, perhaps that's the compensation - Counterspell becomes a "magical action" available to the School of Abjuration at 10th level with whatever reasonable controls make it less obnoxious, and then the spell-everybody-takes version of Counterspell disappears.
lmao it's almost like if y'all were just patient and waited the 3 days to the dev update instead of going on the warpath yellin and screaming, y'all would have had your questions answered and 10+ pages of people arguing could have been avoided 🙄
Right, this thread has run its course. Thread was about D&D Beyond and not selling the book until we knew how the content would be handled. We know how the content will be handled. It's done.
100% agree, y'all got your answer, time to move on
lmao it's almost like if y'all were just patient and waited the 3 days to the dev update instead of going on the warpath yellin and screaming, y'all would have had your questions answered and 10+ pages of people arguing could have been avoided 🙄
Right, this thread has run its course. Thread was about D&D Beyond and not selling the book until we knew how the content would be handled. We know how the content will be handled. It's done.
100% agree, y'all got your answer, time to move on
Hindsight is 20/20 my good dude....
Captain Hindsight aside I think this thread had good discussion around general communication issues many have seen with the site and it's staff.
lmao it's almost like if y'all were just patient and waited the 3 days to the dev update instead of going on the warpath yellin and screaming, y'all would have had your questions answered and 10+ pages of people arguing could have been avoided 🙄
Right, this thread has run its course. Thread was about D&D Beyond and not selling the book until we knew how the content would be handled. We know how the content will be handled. It's done.
100% agree, y'all got your answer, time to move on
It's equally plausible that the dev update specifically addressed the issues raised in this thread because of this thread. Squeaky wheels and all that...
lmao it's almost like if y'all were just patient and waited the 3 days to the dev update instead of going on the warpath yellin and screaming, y'all would have had your questions answered and 10+ pages of people arguing could have been avoided 🙄
Right, this thread has run its course. Thread was about D&D Beyond and not selling the book until we knew how the content would be handled. We know how the content will be handled. It's done.
100% agree, y'all got your answer, time to move on
They didn't wait to put the pre-order banner on every page until the dev update, my dude.
"with several spells reinvented as special magical actions."
And this is the part I profoundly loath.
Why?
Legitimately curious: what's the issue with "Magical Actions" over spells? Tracking a spellcaster's stuff in the thick of combat as a DM, with all the spellcaster's minions also doing shit and having to keep track of what all the players are doing too, sucks. Honestly, the idea of 'Magical Actions' that don't count as spells but are still intrinsically casty is a cool one, and something I'd honestly be looking into back-hacking into the PC rules. It's a lot like cantrips, save without the underlying assumption that all cantrips need to be weak and ineffectual to the point of pointlessness that so many people carry around.
Is this the thing where players can't Counterspell a caster-type enemy into total impotence anymore? That's a distinct benefit, not a drawback. Counterspell is dumb and bad, it's actively harmful to D&D. To the point where I'm very seriously considering removing it entirely from future games I run because it brings nothing worth having to the game, and simply finding some other way to compensate Abjuration wizards if anyone but me ever plays one. Hell, perhaps that's the compensation - Counterspell becomes a "magical action" available to the School of Abjuration at 10th level with whatever reasonable controls make it less obnoxious, and then the spell-everybody-takes version of Counterspell disappears.
One of the reasons, is that I and others use it as a way to distribute spells and components to Wizards and other spellcasters. And I completely disagree with you about counterspell. Counterspell is a godsend in this iteration of the game, where MU's are a CC and buff/debuff class. If Counterspell, dispel magic, antimagic shell et al. go, you remove a good part of the functionality of a MU. If this happens then a boost in the damage curve of blast spells, a reduction in the number of spells that require concentration and a redesign of the number of spells that use constitution as their saving throw will be needed. This is the worst game technical decision I've read so far. If these last things happen and the damage curve of the Wizard quadruples at ultimate levels, like it used too, sure go ahead and nerf counterspell.
The spells in an enemy wizard's spellbook don't have to translate exactly to their statblock. And I didn't sday that everything needed to go. Mostly, I contend that Counterspell specifically is game-poisoning garbage, because being able to toss out a random reaction whenever you feel like it to say "no, you don't get a turn" to any spellcaster out there is not okay. It should cost more than a mostly superfluous spell slot, it should not be available to every single spellcasting class evarz, and certain enemies are going to have ways of saying "No, I get to keep my turn thank you". Especially since players all shriek like banshees whenever an enemy creature uses Counterspell against them. if players are instantly enraged by a thing happening to them, why should the DM tolerate it with cheerful grace when six of the five members of the PC party all make sure to use it every chance they get?
The ability to directly counter, subvert, or inhibit enemy spellcasting - to just say "no, you don't get your spell, you get to sit and spin" - needs to be much rarer than it is. Making it a specific feature of the School of Abjuration makes a lot of sense to me honestly, and gives the otherwise rather lackluster School of Abjuration some meaning. Plus, taking Counterspell off the spell lists puts more emphasis on things like Globe of Invulnerability or the various protection from [X] spells. If you can't just cancel any spell you like nearly for free with whatever random third-level slot you don't care about anymore? All the different spells that exist to help protect the players from deleterious spell effects come back into the game. Eliminating Counterspell and the ability for players to use it to just straight-up ignore enemy spellcasters would be a big benefit to the overall health of the game.
. . . If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders. . .
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
to kinda confirm what trigojon is saying - when I described a "you want it, you buy it (again)" situation as unfair, I was basing that in the idea that I've heard from some that M3 is not a book with new, substantive changes. If I've understood this particular critique, the argument goes: M3 is not providing enough original content to reasonably be considered a unique sourcebook. In truth, M3 is more like a compilation of errata that has been collected from already released book content and WotC statements regarding that content. In this view, it is reasonable to say that owning Volo's Guide and owning Mordenkainen's Tome plus core books like PHB and MM have already covered the substantive majority of the M3 content - and thus, being told to purchase the M3 content is roughly tantamount to being told to pay for a compilation of errata updates (or pay for already-owned content a second time).
In which case - yeah, that would be completely unfair.
. . . If digital retail competitors like Fantasy Grounds, Roll20, or Foundry have taken what Wizards has stipulated, not pushed back, and opened up preorders with the unfair "you want it, you buy it (again)"then DDB has been trapped in a corner. As a company, there is absolutely no way that DDB can afford to let competitors offer preorders without also starting DDB preorders. . .
How is it unfair to make you buy new and different content? Sounds like the typical "I want stuff for free" and "I bought the books in real life why should I have to buy them again digitally!!!?!?" stuff to me.
All the races, save I think the harengon, had major updates that change them quite a lot than mere errata usually does. As well as, if all the talk from WotC is to be believed, the monster statblocks have been massively updated to be boosted for power and ease of DM use.
These are completely different versions and therefore are in another book. Therefore you purchase it again. It makes sense that if you want new content you have to buy it.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding someone here, but I don't think anyone is upset about having to buy the new book to get the updates. In fact, I think many people are HOPING it's that way. What people are upset about is that we DON'T KNOW if we have to buy the book to get the updates, since previously that hasn't been the case.
to kinda confirm what trigojon is saying - when I described a "you want it, you buy it (again)" situation as unfair, I was basing that in the idea that I've heard from some that M3 is not a book with new, substantive changes. If I've understood this particular critique, the argument goes: M3 is not providing enough original content to reasonably be considered a unique sourcebook. In truth, M3 is more like a compilation of errata that has been collected from already released book content and WotC statements regarding that content. In this view, it is reasonable to say that owning Volo's Guide and owning Mordenkainen's Tome plus core books like PHB and MM have already covered the substantive majority of the M3 content - and thus, being told to purchase the M3 content is roughly tantamount to being told to pay for a compilation of errata updates (or pay for already-owned content a second time).
In which case - yeah, that would be completely unfair.
It comes down to whether or not one considers the changes to be errata, or a different version of the same thing. I support fixing errors, but these don't seem like fixing errors to me. The new race versions mean a different play style, and way of building characters. It's not that there were errors they missed in the original monster races, they've just decided to do them differently now. And as for the Monster stats, we're talking about changing the way these monsters work, including changing spells to special actions. This is a very different way of playing D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The spells in an enemy wizard's spellbook don't have to translate exactly to their statblock. And I didn't sday that everything needed to go. Mostly, I contend that Counterspell specifically is game-poisoning garbage, because being able to toss out a random reaction whenever you feel like it to say "no, you don't get a turn" to any spellcaster out there is not okay. It should cost more than a mostly superfluous spell slot, it should not be available to every single spellcasting class evarz, and certain enemies are going to have ways of saying "No, I get to keep my turn thank you". Especially since players all shriek like banshees whenever an enemy creature uses Counterspell against them. if players are instantly enraged by a thing happening to them, why should the DM tolerate it with cheerful grace when six of the five members of the PC party all make sure to use it every chance they get?
The ability to directly counter, subvert, or inhibit enemy spellcasting - to just say "no, you don't get your spell, you get to sit and spin" - needs to be much rarer than it is. Making it a specific feature of the School of Abjuration makes a lot of sense to me honestly, and gives the otherwise rather lackluster School of Abjuration some meaning. Plus, taking Counterspell off the spell lists puts more emphasis on things like Globe of Invulnerability or the various protection from [X] spells. If you can't just cancel any spell you like nearly for free with whatever random third-level slot you don't care about anymore? All the different spells that exist to help protect the players from deleterious spell effects come back into the game. Eliminating Counterspell and the ability for players to use it to just straight-up ignore enemy spellcasters would be a big benefit to the overall health of the game.
The argument I've seen in the past for why enemy combatants should have spells and spell slots just like PCs (and I think it applies here) is because there is one system of magic. If the PCs access that system one way (spell slots, etc Vancian magic) then if the enemies have a different way of accessing and using that system it means they are not equal. Players will ask, "Why can't I do the thing that guy just did? Is it something I can learn?"
IMO if an NPC/Enemy can do it, there should be some way for the PCs to also do it, since they inhabit the same world and are using the same system of magic.
As for Counterspell, there are some DMs who don't allow it, and there have been times my PCs have used it against their enemies, and vice versa, but imo that's an important part of the game. You can't win every fight, sometimes you are outmatched. Some times you have to change your strategy to account for an enemy that has counterspell. Maybe you need to waste a few spells on purpose to lure out the enemy's counters till they've used their slots, like when you need to wear down the Legendary Resistance of a Dragon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The new race versions mean a different play style, and way of building characters.
Do they? Not being sarcastic, but I don't see how.
The previous versions meant making different choices during character creation, like what class you would pair with that race, and it has an affect on RP (imo) if your racial abilities say something about you compared to another character.
Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to the new versions as well, and I am glad there are these new options for people to play, but I maintain that WotC was not correcting an error, but changing the way the game is played.
EDIT: As per Davyd, I am going to stop replying here about the new rules vs old.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Monsters have never used the same rules as PCs. Many innate-caster monsters have a "magic system" far different than any PC can access and can cast spells at will that would eat Greater Arcana spell slots for PCs. A pit fiend's spellcasting bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to a PC's Spellcasting class feature, whichever class they happen to be. In Eberron especially, it's mentioned repeatedly in every single 5e sourcebook both official and unofficial that magewright and ordinary-Schmoe citizens of Khorviare can do magic in ways the PCs can't. They can cast non-ritual spells as rituals, and NPC spellcasters/wandslingers often use the monsters' Innate Casting rules as opposed to spells/spell slots.
The answer to "why can't I do that?!" is "you could - if you spent years learning how. You spent years learning how to be an Adventurer instead, gaining your class features. if you want to spend the next two or three years learning how to be a magewright, you can absolutely do that. Your character retires from the adventure to be a magical civilian; roll up a new character willing to go out and Adventure, please."
Spellcaster enemies having 'Magical Actions' means their magic works differently than the PC's. That's just how magic be sometimes; the player learned one style of adventuring battle magic, the critter learned a different style. If the PC really, truly wants to go out of their way to learn this new trick? Well shit - maybe that's an adventure to be written up, and if the party succeeds on that adventure the PC caster can trade their Fire Bolt for a 'Flame Scourge' magical action.
Nevertheless. There's no reason to force monsters to use the same fiddly, over-complicated ammo-based nonsense PCs do because the monsters aren't PCs and the DM doesn't need to artificially limit or meter their critters the way PC resources need to be metered and limited. Spell slots and pseudo-crapass Vancian magic exist to ensure PCs don't have more magic than their adventuring tier can handle; DMs are under no such restriction. Give your spellcaster a magical action as their base attack; give them a big-punch AoE or a brutal single-target stab on a Recharge 5-6 timer like a draconic breath weapon. If they have utility magic? Let them cast that magic however and whenever it makes sense for them to do so. The BBEG can cast Scry on the party whenever it's narratively convenient, not whenever she has a fifth-level slot to spare, because she's the BBEG. She's not a PC, she does not and never has played by the PC rules. If the players kvetch and complain and give the DM lip because they don't like the way magic works for NPCs? Offer to convert their sheets to NPC stat blocks for them and take away their ability to level up or gain class features.
Or better yet, remind them that monsters have always used different rules than PCs and if they don't like it they're free to step behind the screen and try this crapass job themselves.
The argument I've seen in the past for why enemy combatants should have spells and spell slots just like PCs (and I think it applies here) is because there is one system of magic. If the PCs access that system one way (spell slots, etc Vancian magic) then if the enemies have a different way of accessing and using that system it means they are not equal.
The previous versions meant making different choices during character creation, like what class you would pair with that race, and it has an affect on RP (imo) if your racial abilities say something about you compared to another character.
You still have to pair a class with a race, and the floating racial modifiers have been published as an option in Tasha's and implemented on DDB already. This isn't new, it's already fully in place. Redoing race writeups to comply with it doesn't change a playstyle that can already have incorporated it for over half a year.
On topic: I appreciate Joe's message about the upcoming implementation, but WotC's request to lead on message about the book is unfortunate what with them not really doing much of that - certainly not when it comes to the DDB implementation, and I doubt that's a part of the message WotC is going to touch on any time soon and possibly not ever. Still, the basic confirmation no existing content will be overwritten covers the most pertinent part so if that's all we're getting it's probably enough. It'd be great if this was explained a bit more publicly rather than as part of media output or buried in tweets and forums threads, but I fully understand that'd be a marketing nightmare.
Quote from Yurei1453>>(snips from Amata, for overall length)
Precedent: when the artificer was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron after first being printed in Eberron: Rising from the Last War . . .
Precedent: as Pangurjan mentioned, when the Bladesinger wizard was pretty radically altered in Tasha's Cauldron, owners of the Bladesinger from SCAG . . .
DDB, historically and provably, has replaced old content with the new version whenever The New Version has come out, whether people wanted that to be done or not. Generally it's been seen as errata, as patching and fixing the game, but M3 is the first book to consist of nothing but patches and fixes insofar as the creation tools goes. There are no new species, there are no new monsters, and for the first time in 5e's run, a very significant portion of the playerbase is fiercely opposed to the changes and actively dis-wants them. There are many, many, many players who absolutely hate the idea of the things they're using being summarily replaced without their say-so, and there are many more who wonder why they should pay thirty dollars for a bookful of updates they presume they're going to get anyways whether they want them or not. Because, again - a large majority of DDB users are here for the digital toolset as much if not more so than they are for the written content of the books themselves. . .
. . . not-knowing is the entire problem. Nobody knows what's going to happen when M3 drops, who will get what, and how content they already own will be treated - and yet DDB is out there squawking its head off trying to convince king and country to rush out and spend their dollars as soon as ever they possibly can.
I don't believe that's fair. I don't believe that's okay. I believe that if DDB wants anyone to spend money on their product, they can do us the kindness and courtesy of telling us what that money actually buys them and how that product will function in the value-added service that is the core of their business. I believe DDB does not have an excuse. They knew this was coming, Wizards knew this was coming, and if they needed word from Wizards to figure out these answers they should have been pressing Wizards for answers...
. . . the other precedent set by DDB recently is that the new management team is extremely bad at communication. The new guy, Joe Starr, has done almost nothing to communicate issues outside of Dev Update videos that have been canceled repeatedly now, and many of those Dev Update videos are more fluff than fact.
. . . and as much as I appreciate Mellie stepping in here to tell us 'we're sorry this sucks, we agree it sucks, and we'll tell you everything we can when we're allowed to do it!", I also find that to be a deeply unsatisfactory answer.
. . . Don't f@#$ing sell people a product before you figure out how you're actually going to offer that product.
Anyways. Cultural shit for Amata specifically in the blurb
I'm an American. Indirect he-said-she-said-they-said stuff, doing one's best to speak in vague, semi-related generalities and doing one's utmost to avoid names and specifics, is often seen as shifty, disingenuous, and rude here. To Muricans that stuff is often adjacent to outright lying and feels more like someone is trying to stealth-insult you or mislead you than someone is trying to be polite to you. We do not like and are not historically much good at playing Connect-The-Dots and figuring out the true intended meaning of indirect speech. That way lies confusion, miscommunication, and madness.
It is, I believe, one of the major contributing facotrs to ol' Eagleland's reputation abroad as being full of brash dumb idiots. As a general thing, we don't truck with "the maple leaf sways in the harsh winds of fall" pseudomystical nonsense. We're not concerned with saving face or any similar phenomenon. We say exactly what we mean and we expect others to do the same to us; when someone does not the response is not "oh, they're so polite!", it's "why are you being so weird what are you trying to pull?"
Don't know how much exposure you've had to Muricana and our brash bold-facedly faceless dumbness, but there ye go. That's why people get called out by name, and why responses here are often going to be brutally direct and unveiled. Especially when somebody is jerking my chain and has gotten my blood up the way DDB has with this latest tom****ery.
. . . oh, my.
First, thank you very much for taking the time and energy to write back-and-forth with me. Also, a sincere apology to you, Pangurjan, and others - I'm embarrassed by how much information I was lacking regarding how published material was implemented, versus how I assumed material was implemented.
I had honestly been under the impression that information in setting-specific sourcebooks, and in noncore sourcebooks, adventures, etc were not being revised or altered - according to established publishing standards. Just because an asset is digital doesn't mean any person can just change it ****in willy-nilly! There are rules about these things! A book might be altered in reprints (or digital updates) for SPAG, typos, and small errata/content errors like correcting a proper name accidentally mixed up with some other person's name. But everyone -especially publishers or companies dealing with published content - should surely know that any substantive change or revision of content necessarily demands publishing a new edition or volume, and marked as such!!
I am beyond furious to find out that between WotC and/or DDB, this has not been the case. My shock and dismay are immeasurable, and I feel incoherently aghast. I have had to go put the kettle on, I am so upset by what I have learned in the course of this thread. (edited to add: I take the next few paragraphs to rant, and have placed this under a snip)
There is absolutely no reason for changes made to Bladesingers in Tasha's should in any way impact or alter the Bladesinger information located in SCAG. AND, if a person has paid for both SCAG and Tasha's it is - one would ******* presume - because the customer wantedaccess to both of those versions. There are already established methods for adding notation to differentiate variations on a thing - why in the nine hells would DDB utterly fail to simply leave unlocked (purchased, for heaven's sake!) in the proper state as published and just add appropriate notation during character creation?! THIS DEFIES ALL LOGIC AND REASON.
Assuming I have purchased both Tasha's and SCAG, when I go to create my bladesinger I should absolutely see my subclass options list contain "bladesinger (vers1)" and "bladesinger (vers2)" or they could use the notation for variant (var.) or the sourcebook "bladesinger (Tasha's), bladesinger (SCAG)" . . . or literally anything, anything at all. I am beyond befuddled - this does not even make business sense - as there is literally no motivation for new customers to go back and purchase any of the original / older content, if the only content available for usage is the version located in the most recent publication. The only "automatic updates" applied to digital content should be strictly contained within the realm of non-substantive fixes for conflicting mechanics and, like, clarifications. One does not simply actively re-write the contents of a book, digital or otherwise, especially not after it has been purchased! It's just not done!
I did not guard against this sort of implementation because it is beyond the realm of all reason to do this. How could any rational adult be expected to anticipate this? We're not uncultured chuckleheads, we live in a society, we have standards! I have never used so many italic words and exclamation points in my entire life. I could, for argument's sake, see my way to accepting automatic "updates" to core content / base books, like PHB, DMG, or MM. That, I can imagine, as some sort of parallel to automatic updates in apps or software or an operating system. But the in-app purchases? The opt-in extras? There is a reason that phrases like backwards compatible exist.
The part that makes my skin crawl the worst is perhaps the apparent inconsistency of it - I am driven to the limit when systems are internally inconsistent. When I use the DDB header bar to load "Races" and I look at the entry for "gnome," I have been under the completely logical and reasonable assumption that I would be looking at the most up-to-date "default" base template of multiverse useable / setting neutral 'gnomes.' And even the blurbs of the subraces make note of the presence of variants in different campaign settings and source books. That implicitly guides the reader to the logical conclusion that purchasing campaign settings and noncore source books will unlock access to the variants not subject to updates or frequent change.
Even the language used to describe M3 directly supports this assumption, for example: "brings all the game’s setting-agnostic races into one book" implies that setting specific variants will not be impacted or altered based on this book. Combined with "more options for your next character created on D&D Beyond’s Character Builder" this ad implicitly suggests that the M3 content will also not impact or alter the "default" build(s) outlined in the PHB, rather provides additional options available to unlock for use with setting agnostic character builds. While the next point, "Updated format that makes playable races relevant for any class--on any world--in the multiverse," can be read as completely mechanic-content neutral; an update to the template for character building with enough flexibility or unlockable sections or some other aspect of the format that makes the template universal to the game system - not a change that touches on any of the metrics, the features, the racial, or other unique characteristics of building a character. Finally, language like "expanding on the choices in the Player’s Handbook" (emphasis mine) directly states that the content ought to be an addition to the PHB content, not an over-write. M3 is described as an addendum at bare minimum, or a compilation-style sourcebook of familiar default-type playable and nonplayable statblocks uniquely re-conceptualized and presented in a new "multiverse compatible" format.
With language like these examples consistent throughout the marketing blurb on the product's sale page, there should be NO question regarding implementation on DDB. The advertisement for the product directly describes the manner of implementation legally required for this product - unless DDB / WotC are planning to open themselves up to potential legal action for false advertising.
From what I'm hearing, it sounds like maybe(?) WotC wants a half- or- new edition without the hard work involved with actually publishing such... and might be using DDB (and other digital content providers?) in order to slide "D&D 5.5" or "D&D 6th ed" into the equivalent of a soft release?? It is a situation bizarre beyond the telling of it. Reminds me uncomfortably of times when video game studios use endless "open beta" and "early access" as a way to slide games into an unofficial full release while side-stepping front-page gaming reviews and criticisms.
And a couple comments directly for Yurei about the culture stuff....
Your comments about American culture are fascinating and delightful (to me).
No pressure to reveal more details about where in America you live - but I would be curious as to your region of the US. If I had to guess, I would consider areas of the country with stronger/more dominant urbanization; placing your statements at home along either of the coasts or a location with higher population density located "in the North." This would be my guess, because I am also American. I was born and raised in the South (the Bible Belt specifically), and I left as soon as I could for northern regions. As of now, I've lived most of my adult life "up North," first in a flat-share in Chicago and later settling in western NY. Even though it has literally been decades, I still accidentally upset my neighbors when my version of polite regard raises their hackles that I must be hiding an ulterior motive. And I am always surprised when my attempts at friendly, pleasant greetings to strangers I pass while running errands are met with shocked, suspicious looks and even outright (to me, hostile) glares.
I grew up in the land of "yesm'am" and "bless your heart" and a pleasant public smile holding more value in social currency than actual currency. I was raised to be gracious, lady-like, and honest - but not honest, at least not in around strangers. So your description of "America" sounds absolutely nothing like the America of my youth and my childhood home town - but, having traveled both around America and around the globe - I immediately recognized the American culture you were speaking about. Reminded me of Chicago, NYC, and of Ani DiFranco lyrics. To be perfectly honest (the real kind of honest), although I sometimes miss the veil of pleasant regard draped over everything south of the Mason-Dixon line... I sure as hell prefer the raw bluntness of the north when compared to what that veil is hiding underneath. The north has it, too - but there is far less obfuscation, which has some sort of merit, I believe. Old habits die hard, however - and I find that my accent and my manner become dramatically more "Southern" when I am upset or uncertain about something. I'd offer more apologies for the miscommunication on my part, but maybe that would be read as disingenuous?
oh, and, hilariously, I found "the maple leaf sways in the harsh winds of fall" a lovely little descriptive sentence! Is this a quote from somewhere, or a song lyric? Or did you simply come up with a string of words on the spot that sound vaguely hinting at depth, but also possibly utterly vacant? Either way, I'm going to keep this delightful little ditty in mind - I find it charming. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
From everything I have seen so far, there will be only one completely new creature, a telepathic teleporting fey dolphin. Every monster from VGtM and MToF will be in the book except for the Volo's orcs, but it sounds like they're not just going to be reorganized stat blocks. They're most likely going to adjust the CR, HP, and damage dials and the spellcasting will be streamlined, with several spells reinvented as special magical actions. A lot of the lore will be new and several will have new art.
As for the races, all but the two Witchlight ones will have alterations. Aasimar and shifters each have been combined into one stat block, with a selection of options replacing the separate subraces. For the elves magical sleep immunity has been moved to Trance and the goblinoids all have gained Fey Ancestry. The hobgoblin and kobold resemble their latest UA versions. All natural weapons now deal d6 damage and are considered unarmed strikes. Innate spellcasting now gives you a choice of WIS, INT, or CHA as the ability and they have the option of casting the spells with spell slots. As expected, the ASIs and languages have been separated and all the tool and weapon proficiencies have been removed. The Aasimar, Changeling, Genesi, Tabaxi, Tortle, Yuan-ti and Kenku can now be small. All speeds lower than 30 feet are now 30 feet, and climbing, swimming, and flying speeds are equal to walking speed. Negative traits like sunlight sensitivity are gone. Short rest abilities are now PB times per long rest. Spells that aren't in the PHB have been replaced. The deep gnome feat has been merged into its stat block and several races have new abilities. The biggest changes that some people seem not to like is that the kobold no longer has pack tactics and the lizardfolk doesn't have cunning artisan (that can easily be roleplayed with the DM's green light though). Kenku no longer have to mimic sounds to speak but feel free to keep making random noises if you want to. Several traits are the same with new names. If you want all the details look for u/KingJackel's write up on Reddit.
I really like most of what they changed, and even the ones I do not care for I can at least understand the reasoning behind them. I finished homebrewing them all and am now starting to tinker with the PHB races with the changes I am expecting to happen in 2024 based on what they did in M3. Human is the only one I'm really at a loss about how it will be handled, but unless it's completely redesigned I'm guessing that the ASI options will include (+2,+2+1) and (+2,+1,+1,+1). If that's the case I'll be playing more human monks and rangers in the future.
Hey look, a Jeremy Crawford interview on this book: https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-and-dragons-player-race-changes-monsters-of-mu-1848373576
And this is the part I profoundly loath.
Why?
Legitimately curious: what's the issue with "Magical Actions" over spells? Tracking a spellcaster's stuff in the thick of combat as a DM, with all the spellcaster's minions also doing shit and having to keep track of what all the players are doing too, sucks. Honestly, the idea of 'Magical Actions' that don't count as spells but are still intrinsically casty is a cool one, and something I'd honestly be looking into back-hacking into the PC rules. It's a lot like cantrips, save without the underlying assumption that all cantrips need to be weak and ineffectual to the point of pointlessness that so many people carry around.
Is this the thing where players can't Counterspell a caster-type enemy into total impotence anymore? That's a distinct benefit, not a drawback. Counterspell is dumb and bad, it's actively harmful to D&D. To the point where I'm very seriously considering removing it entirely from future games I run because it brings nothing worth having to the game, and simply finding some other way to compensate Abjuration wizards if anyone but me ever plays one. Hell, perhaps that's the compensation - Counterspell becomes a "magical action" available to the School of Abjuration at 10th level with whatever reasonable controls make it less obnoxious, and then the spell-everybody-takes version of Counterspell disappears.
Please do not contact or message me.
lmao it's almost like if y'all were just patient and waited the 3 days to the dev update instead of going on the warpath yellin and screaming, y'all would have had your questions answered and 10+ pages of people arguing could have been avoided 🙄
100% agree, y'all got your answer, time to move on
Hindsight is 20/20 my good dude....
Captain Hindsight aside I think this thread had good discussion around general communication issues many have seen with the site and it's staff.
It's equally plausible that the dev update specifically addressed the issues raised in this thread because of this thread. Squeaky wheels and all that...
They didn't wait to put the pre-order banner on every page until the dev update, my dude.
I am also here.
Am snek.
Worth noting in the Q&A section that Joe specifically highlighted M3 as being, and I quote "New content."
Without actually using air quotes, he might as well have done so due to how he said those actual words.
One of the reasons, is that I and others use it as a way to distribute spells and components to Wizards and other spellcasters. And I completely disagree with you about counterspell. Counterspell is a godsend in this iteration of the game, where MU's are a CC and buff/debuff class. If Counterspell, dispel magic, antimagic shell et al. go, you remove a good part of the functionality of a MU. If this happens then a boost in the damage curve of blast spells, a reduction in the number of spells that require concentration and a redesign of the number of spells that use constitution as their saving throw will be needed. This is the worst game technical decision I've read so far. If these last things happen and the damage curve of the Wizard quadruples at ultimate levels, like it used too, sure go ahead and nerf counterspell.
The spells in an enemy wizard's spellbook don't have to translate exactly to their statblock. And I didn't sday that everything needed to go. Mostly, I contend that Counterspell specifically is game-poisoning garbage, because being able to toss out a random reaction whenever you feel like it to say "no, you don't get a turn" to any spellcaster out there is not okay. It should cost more than a mostly superfluous spell slot, it should not be available to every single spellcasting class evarz, and certain enemies are going to have ways of saying "No, I get to keep my turn thank you". Especially since players all shriek like banshees whenever an enemy creature uses Counterspell against them. if players are instantly enraged by a thing happening to them, why should the DM tolerate it with cheerful grace when six of the five members of the PC party all make sure to use it every chance they get?
The ability to directly counter, subvert, or inhibit enemy spellcasting - to just say "no, you don't get your spell, you get to sit and spin" - needs to be much rarer than it is. Making it a specific feature of the School of Abjuration makes a lot of sense to me honestly, and gives the otherwise rather lackluster School of Abjuration some meaning. Plus, taking Counterspell off the spell lists puts more emphasis on things like Globe of Invulnerability or the various protection from [X] spells. If you can't just cancel any spell you like nearly for free with whatever random third-level slot you don't care about anymore? All the different spells that exist to help protect the players from deleterious spell effects come back into the game. Eliminating Counterspell and the ability for players to use it to just straight-up ignore enemy spellcasters would be a big benefit to the overall health of the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
to kinda confirm what trigojon is saying -
when I described a "you want it, you buy it (again)" situation as unfair, I was basing that in the idea that I've heard from some that M3 is not a book with new, substantive changes. If I've understood this particular critique, the argument goes: M3 is not providing enough original content to reasonably be considered a unique sourcebook. In truth, M3 is more like a compilation of errata that has been collected from already released book content and WotC statements regarding that content. In this view, it is reasonable to say that owning Volo's Guide and owning Mordenkainen's Tome plus core books like PHB and MM have already covered the substantive majority of the M3 content - and thus, being told to purchase the M3 content is roughly tantamount to being told to pay for a compilation of errata updates (or pay for already-owned content a second time).
In which case - yeah, that would be completely unfair.
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜
It comes down to whether or not one considers the changes to be errata, or a different version of the same thing. I support fixing errors, but these don't seem like fixing errors to me. The new race versions mean a different play style, and way of building characters. It's not that there were errors they missed in the original monster races, they've just decided to do them differently now. And as for the Monster stats, we're talking about changing the way these monsters work, including changing spells to special actions. This is a very different way of playing D&D.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Do they? Not being sarcastic, but I don't see how.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The argument I've seen in the past for why enemy combatants should have spells and spell slots just like PCs (and I think it applies here) is because there is one system of magic. If the PCs access that system one way (spell slots, etc Vancian magic) then if the enemies have a different way of accessing and using that system it means they are not equal. Players will ask, "Why can't I do the thing that guy just did? Is it something I can learn?"
IMO if an NPC/Enemy can do it, there should be some way for the PCs to also do it, since they inhabit the same world and are using the same system of magic.
As for Counterspell, there are some DMs who don't allow it, and there have been times my PCs have used it against their enemies, and vice versa, but imo that's an important part of the game. You can't win every fight, sometimes you are outmatched. Some times you have to change your strategy to account for an enemy that has counterspell. Maybe you need to waste a few spells on purpose to lure out the enemy's counters till they've used their slots, like when you need to wear down the Legendary Resistance of a Dragon.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
This thread is getting off topic from a discussion of D&D Beyonds messaging of the implementation of Monsters of the Multiverse.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
The previous versions meant making different choices during character creation, like what class you would pair with that race, and it has an affect on RP (imo) if your racial abilities say something about you compared to another character.
Don't get me wrong, there are benefits to the new versions as well, and I am glad there are these new options for people to play, but I maintain that WotC was not correcting an error, but changing the way the game is played.
EDIT: As per Davyd, I am going to stop replying here about the new rules vs old.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Monsters have never used the same rules as PCs. Many innate-caster monsters have a "magic system" far different than any PC can access and can cast spells at will that would eat Greater Arcana spell slots for PCs. A pit fiend's spellcasting bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to a PC's Spellcasting class feature, whichever class they happen to be. In Eberron especially, it's mentioned repeatedly in every single 5e sourcebook both official and unofficial that magewright and ordinary-Schmoe citizens of Khorviare can do magic in ways the PCs can't. They can cast non-ritual spells as rituals, and NPC spellcasters/wandslingers often use the monsters' Innate Casting rules as opposed to spells/spell slots.
The answer to "why can't I do that?!" is "you could - if you spent years learning how. You spent years learning how to be an Adventurer instead, gaining your class features. if you want to spend the next two or three years learning how to be a magewright, you can absolutely do that. Your character retires from the adventure to be a magical civilian; roll up a new character willing to go out and Adventure, please."
Spellcaster enemies having 'Magical Actions' means their magic works differently than the PC's. That's just how magic be sometimes; the player learned one style of adventuring battle magic, the critter learned a different style. If the PC really, truly wants to go out of their way to learn this new trick? Well shit - maybe that's an adventure to be written up, and if the party succeeds on that adventure the PC caster can trade their Fire Bolt for a 'Flame Scourge' magical action.
Nevertheless. There's no reason to force monsters to use the same fiddly, over-complicated ammo-based nonsense PCs do because the monsters aren't PCs and the DM doesn't need to artificially limit or meter their critters the way PC resources need to be metered and limited. Spell slots and pseudo-crapass Vancian magic exist to ensure PCs don't have more magic than their adventuring tier can handle; DMs are under no such restriction. Give your spellcaster a magical action as their base attack; give them a big-punch AoE or a brutal single-target stab on a Recharge 5-6 timer like a draconic breath weapon. If they have utility magic? Let them cast that magic however and whenever it makes sense for them to do so. The BBEG can cast Scry on the party whenever it's narratively convenient, not whenever she has a fifth-level slot to spare, because she's the BBEG. She's not a PC, she does not and never has played by the PC rules. If the players kvetch and complain and give the DM lip because they don't like the way magic works for NPCs? Offer to convert their sheets to NPC stat blocks for them and take away their ability to level up or gain class features.
Or better yet, remind them that monsters have always used different rules than PCs and if they don't like it they're free to step behind the screen and try this crapass job themselves.
Please do not contact or message me.
*cough*innate racial magic*cough* PCs already access magic outside spell slots.
You still have to pair a class with a race, and the floating racial modifiers have been published as an option in Tasha's and implemented on DDB already. This isn't new, it's already fully in place. Redoing race writeups to comply with it doesn't change a playstyle that can already have incorporated it for over half a year.
On topic: I appreciate Joe's message about the upcoming implementation, but WotC's request to lead on message about the book is unfortunate what with them not really doing much of that - certainly not when it comes to the DDB implementation, and I doubt that's a part of the message WotC is going to touch on any time soon and possibly not ever. Still, the basic confirmation no existing content will be overwritten covers the most pertinent part so if that's all we're getting it's probably enough. It'd be great if this was explained a bit more publicly rather than as part of media output or buried in tweets and forums threads, but I fully understand that'd be a marketing nightmare.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
. . . oh, my.
First, thank you very much for taking the time and energy to write back-and-forth with me. Also, a sincere apology to you, Pangurjan, and others - I'm embarrassed by how much information I was lacking regarding how published material was implemented, versus how I assumed material was implemented.
I had honestly been under the impression that information in setting-specific sourcebooks, and in noncore sourcebooks, adventures, etc were not being revised or altered - according to established publishing standards. Just because an asset is digital doesn't mean any person can just change it ****in willy-nilly! There are rules about these things! A book might be altered in reprints (or digital updates) for SPAG, typos, and small errata/content errors like correcting a proper name accidentally mixed up with some other person's name. But everyone -especially publishers or companies dealing with published content - should surely know that any substantive change or revision of content necessarily demands publishing a new edition or volume, and marked as such!!
I am beyond furious to find out that between WotC and/or DDB, this has not been the case. My shock and dismay are immeasurable, and I feel incoherently aghast. I have had to go put the kettle on, I am so upset by what I have learned in the course of this thread. (edited to add: I take the next few paragraphs to rant, and have placed this under a snip)
There is absolutely no reason for changes made to Bladesingers in Tasha's should in any way impact or alter the Bladesinger information located in SCAG. AND, if a person has paid for both SCAG and Tasha's it is - one would ******* presume - because the customer wanted access to both of those versions. There are already established methods for adding notation to differentiate variations on a thing - why in the nine hells would DDB utterly fail to simply leave unlocked (purchased, for heaven's sake!) in the proper state as published and just add appropriate notation during character creation?! THIS DEFIES ALL LOGIC AND REASON.
Assuming I have purchased both Tasha's and SCAG, when I go to create my bladesinger I should absolutely see my subclass options list contain "bladesinger (vers1)" and "bladesinger (vers2)" or they could use the notation for variant (var.) or the sourcebook "bladesinger (Tasha's), bladesinger (SCAG)" . . . or literally anything, anything at all. I am beyond befuddled - this does not even make business sense - as there is literally no motivation for new customers to go back and purchase any of the original / older content, if the only content available for usage is the version located in the most recent publication. The only "automatic updates" applied to digital content should be strictly contained within the realm of non-substantive fixes for conflicting mechanics and, like, clarifications. One does not simply actively re-write the contents of a book, digital or otherwise, especially not after it has been purchased! It's just not done!
I did not guard against this sort of implementation because it is beyond the realm of all reason to do this. How could any rational adult be expected to anticipate this? We're not uncultured chuckleheads, we live in a society, we have standards! I have never used so many italic words and exclamation points in my entire life. I could, for argument's sake, see my way to accepting automatic "updates" to core content / base books, like PHB, DMG, or MM. That, I can imagine, as some sort of parallel to automatic updates in apps or software or an operating system. But the in-app purchases? The opt-in extras? There is a reason that phrases like backwards compatible exist.
The part that makes my skin crawl the worst is perhaps the apparent inconsistency of it - I am driven to the limit when systems are internally inconsistent. When I use the DDB header bar to load "Races" and I look at the entry for "gnome," I have been under the completely logical and reasonable assumption that I would be looking at the most up-to-date "default" base template of multiverse useable / setting neutral 'gnomes.' And even the blurbs of the subraces make note of the presence of variants in different campaign settings and source books. That implicitly guides the reader to the logical conclusion that purchasing campaign settings and noncore source books will unlock access to the variants not subject to updates or frequent change.
Even the language used to describe M3 directly supports this assumption, for example: "brings all the game’s setting-agnostic races into one book" implies that setting specific variants will not be impacted or altered based on this book. Combined with "more options for your next character created on D&D Beyond’s Character Builder" this ad implicitly suggests that the M3 content will also not impact or alter the "default" build(s) outlined in the PHB, rather provides additional options available to unlock for use with setting agnostic character builds. While the next point, "Updated format that makes playable races relevant for any class--on any world--in the multiverse," can be read as completely mechanic-content neutral; an update to the template for character building with enough flexibility or unlockable sections or some other aspect of the format that makes the template universal to the game system - not a change that touches on any of the metrics, the features, the racial, or other unique characteristics of building a character. Finally, language like "expanding on the choices in the Player’s Handbook" (emphasis mine) directly states that the content ought to be an addition to the PHB content, not an over-write. M3 is described as an addendum at bare minimum, or a compilation-style sourcebook of familiar default-type playable and nonplayable statblocks uniquely re-conceptualized and presented in a new "multiverse compatible" format.
With language like these examples consistent throughout the marketing blurb on the product's sale page, there should be NO question regarding implementation on DDB. The advertisement for the product directly describes the manner of implementation legally required for this product - unless DDB / WotC are planning to open themselves up to potential legal action for false advertising.
From what I'm hearing, it sounds like maybe(?) WotC wants a half- or- new edition without the hard work involved with actually publishing such... and might be using DDB (and other digital content providers?) in order to slide "D&D 5.5" or "D&D 6th ed" into the equivalent of a soft release?? It is a situation bizarre beyond the telling of it. Reminds me uncomfortably of times when video game studios use endless "open beta" and "early access" as a way to slide games into an unofficial full release while side-stepping front-page gaming reviews and criticisms.
And a couple comments directly for Yurei about the culture stuff....
Your comments about American culture are fascinating and delightful (to me).
No pressure to reveal more details about where in America you live - but I would be curious as to your region of the US. If I had to guess, I would consider areas of the country with stronger/more dominant urbanization; placing your statements at home along either of the coasts or a location with higher population density located "in the North." This would be my guess, because I am also American. I was born and raised in the South (the Bible Belt specifically), and I left as soon as I could for northern regions. As of now, I've lived most of my adult life "up North," first in a flat-share in Chicago and later settling in western NY. Even though it has literally been decades, I still accidentally upset my neighbors when my version of polite regard raises their hackles that I must be hiding an ulterior motive. And I am always surprised when my attempts at friendly, pleasant greetings to strangers I pass while running errands are met with shocked, suspicious looks and even outright (to me, hostile) glares.
I grew up in the land of "yesm'am" and "bless your heart" and a pleasant public smile holding more value in social currency than actual currency. I was raised to be gracious, lady-like, and honest - but not honest, at least not in around strangers. So your description of "America" sounds absolutely nothing like the America of my youth and my childhood home town - but, having traveled both around America and around the globe - I immediately recognized the American culture you were speaking about. Reminded me of Chicago, NYC, and of Ani DiFranco lyrics. To be perfectly honest (the real kind of honest), although I sometimes miss the veil of pleasant regard draped over everything south of the Mason-Dixon line... I sure as hell prefer the raw bluntness of the north when compared to what that veil is hiding underneath. The north has it, too - but there is far less obfuscation, which has some sort of merit, I believe. Old habits die hard, however - and I find that my accent and my manner become dramatically more "Southern" when I am upset or uncertain about something. I'd offer more apologies for the miscommunication on my part, but maybe that would be read as disingenuous?
oh, and, hilariously, I found "the maple leaf sways in the harsh winds of fall" a lovely little descriptive sentence! Is this a quote from somewhere, or a song lyric? Or did you simply come up with a string of words on the spot that sound vaguely hinting at depth, but also possibly utterly vacant? Either way, I'm going to keep this delightful little ditty in mind - I find it charming. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
💜 Spes Æternum Oritur 💜