Telekinetic - we don't currently have a way to grant extra range to the mage hand cantrip.
Thought about just adding a new VERSION of Mage Hand, call it Telekinetic Hand; that is essentially mage hand with the new range; and side step whatever scripting wall you have hit with the range of mage hand??
D&D Beyond always aims to present the rules exactly as described by Wizards of the Coast. As such, the team cannot make up things that don't exist in the rules (such as your aforementioned 'telekinetic hand') and present it as official or part of something official.
If a user wants to privately homebrew a modified version of Mage Hand for this purpose, they are free to do so.
Telekinetic - we don't currently have a way to grant extra range to the mage hand cantrip.
Thought about just adding a new VERSION of Mage Hand, call it Telekinetic Hand; that is essentially mage hand with the new range; and side step whatever scripting wall you have hit with the range of mage hand??
D&D Beyond always aims to present the rules exactly as described by Wizards of the Coast. As such, the team cannot make up things that don't exist in the rules (such as your aforementioned 'telekinetic hand') and present it as official or part of something official.
If a user wants to privately homebrew a modified version of Mage Hand for this purpose, they are free to do so.
Except that’s not entirely true, is it? DDB have made up things that don’t exist in the rules and presented it as official in order to work around deficiencies in their tools. If the revenant double-bladed scimitar can “exist,” why not Telekinetic Mage Hand?
Summon Undead is improperly tagged as a Conjuration spell when the book says it is Necromancy.
Thanks, sneaky conjurers trying to steal those necromancy spells. I blame gnomes. Anyways, it's fixed now!
Minor text error: Summon Undead is still listed as a conjuration spell under the Additional Wizard Spells optional class feature.
All of the summon “whatever” spells are conjuration spells. Why would summon undead be classified as necromancy? I can see create undead being classified that way, but summoning something seems like it would always be conjuration, regardless of what is being summoned.
Summon Undead is improperly tagged as a Conjuration spell when the book says it is Necromancy.
Thanks, sneaky conjurers trying to steal those necromancy spells. I blame gnomes. Anyways, it's fixed now!
Minor text error: Summon Undead is still listed as a conjuration spell under the Additional Wizard Spells optional class feature.
All of the summon “whatever” spells are conjuration spells. Why would summon undead be classified as necromancy? I can see create undead being classified that way, but summoning something seems like it would always be conjuration, regardless of what is being summoned.
Because it is necromancy. Being listed as conjuration is a textual error.
Note that the telekinetic feat does not automatically increase the mage hand spell range to 60 feet. It only does if you already have mage hand -- hence the difficulty of simply creating another version mage hand spell with range 60 feet. There would need to be a code in the character builder that does the following:
"If character X knows Mage Hand, add Mage Hand (Telekinetic)" ;
"If it does not know mage hand, add regular Mage Hand.
In both cases, add feat benefits: "You can cast this cantrip without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible."
But there's no way afaik of doing that in the current feat builder.
Currently, the range remains the default one in the spell tags, but the note below (in quotation) does appear at the end of the spell description. A player can further customize the spell on the digital character sheet ("customize" spell), and manually add note "Range: 60 feet", which will appear in the note section of the spell list.
"Telekinetic: You can cast this cantrip without verbal or somatic components, and you can make the spectral hand invisible. If you already know this spell, its range is increased by 30 ft. when you cast it."
When adding in the Origin features of a homebrew race, and making it publically available they will be there which is fine. But when you try to make a new version (since you can’t edit the old one) they are gone and only the basic features are there. You have to recreate the origin (replacement) features again every time you want to update a race which is annoying, especially if you overlook it and have to start from scratch -.-. I really wish there was a neater way to update existing content.
Hey there, I just noticed that the tentacle of the deeps feature for the fathomless warlock isn't scaling to 2d8 at the 10th level. I'm just wondering is this a known issue or are there any plans to correct it?
Just a random question, timeline wise and what not. Knowing full well the the Artificer class has new infusions, and a crap ton of new abilities that weren't the same as they were in UA or in Eberron, is there any timeline on when things for the Artificer may be getting pushed out? The initial post just says coming soon fort he infusions, but the armorer features are not mentioned specifically.
Public Mod Note
(Stormknight):
We're not able to give an ETA - sorry! Developers are working on it though!
I don't know if anyone else has posted this, but I can't access the order domain for the cleric class, it's simply not an option I can pick in the character creator. When I read about the different domains one can choose, either on pc or phone, it's there. am I missing something or is this a bug? i really wanna try playing it
Try turning on Magic the gathering content in the character builder. The Order domain first was published there. I think it's something they plan to address as some point, but for now that should fix it for you.
I tried searching this thread before asking. This question. I didn't anything about so:
I was trying to build a 5th V. Human Armorer Artificer and noticed I wasn't able to add 'Infusions Known'. The drop menu for each potential infusion was basically blank.
For me this is not a technical issue, and everything you and other 'defenders' cite on the technical challenges is completely valid and correct. For me this is a customer service and communication issue, and it comes down to the principle which used to prevail, that when someone pays for something they should receive it or if that is not feasible in the immediate moment they should be offered plausible, timely and clear explanations as to what the work plans (and whenever possible timelines) are for providing that which has been paid for.
The customer services attitudes on deliver of Tasha's reminds me of what you get from a monopoly such as BT (British Telecom) in the UK, where the seller / provider knows they're the only game in town with no competition and they can deliver stuff whenever they like as there is really no risk that customers go elsewhere. That is what annoys me. A little bit better communication and at effort on their part to convey more info would go a long way in satisfying me.
Hi there,
I'm sorry you feel that way - we've worked hard on resolving issues as well as making sure we've communicated what's going on - see the start of this thread.
Please can you explain what you feel that better communication would look like?
We're always looking to improve and, if we're falling short, I'd like to understand some specifics.
The Ranger Primal Companion isn't working due to a technical issue that requires a developer to resolve (as in the Game Content team can't resolve it). If I were to get a developer to explain in more detail what the problem is, I expect it would be even less informative than the current statement, as it would require knowledge of the internal code. I could have just written, "technical issue" but that felt lazy and generic. There is a genuine problem and like all of the other issues, it's in a resolution stack and assigned to people to resolve.
Stormnight,
thanks for your reply. That's appreciated, as is the feedback on the specific example (Primal Companion) that I cited. I don't wish to get into a tit-for-tat debate with you or anyone else about what can be done on this or that specific bug, as that would surely be counterproductive. I suppose what I'm arguing for in general is more (rather than less) information and clarity on level of complexity and time required for fixes on key elements of character builder features in particular.
To stick with the Primal Companion example I already cited, I prefer to have as information as possible without being confusing (and also possibly indicating what sort of timeline you are operating on to either provide the next update or the resolution). Whilst I realise it might not be easy on your side for developers and coders to indicate precise targets for resolution, it is also important for DDB team to realise that on the customer side it is frustrating to have absolutely NO idea if something is expected to be a few hours, days or even weeks or months. For something like the Primal Companion, you will certainly realise is it is key to the Beast Master subclass fix that so many people have waited years for, and is quite a big reason for some of us to be excited about Tasha's. So you guys must also appreciate how annoyed a lot of ranger players have felt for some time and how they have awaited the Optional Class Features in TGtE.... and, here we are, basically the main ones - replacements for Favored Enemy and Natural Explorer, and the BM companion, are broken. Therefore, giving folks an explicit signal that it is a priority for you and also when it might be resolved- even if that has to be modified as new info comes to light- in my opinion would be a great way to excel on the customer service side. As it stands in the initial update statement, simply calling it an entitlements issue means absolutely nothing to customers on the outside looking in.
Just an idea, but if DDB developers do expect the fix for Primal Companion to take weeks or months, and not just days, then the nice and simple thing to do as an interim measure, might be to pop a creature stat block up that can be added as an extra in the same way you currently do for normal Beast Master Companions or Artificers. That would be an easily delivered good-faith gesture that I'm sure would go over well with many customers until you get the licensing issue sorted that allows you to deliver the feature as intended.
As a customer, I'm always one that prefers more information than too little. I understand that some of your other clients might be the opposite, and I respect that. All I can do here is pass on my opinion, and again, I am grateful for your reply above. Good luck in the rest of the roll-out and bug resolution, I'm sure you guys will get it right in the end.
Regards
G
My thoughts exactly! While I know every coding issue is different and difficult to estimate, that can be mitigated with a priority list and estimated completion dates. I mean DDB says they don't have a way to support sidekick rules, but those were introduced a year and a half ago in the Essential Kit. You honestly mean to tell me that in a year and a half you haven't even come close to solving that problem? DDB has been ignoring boons & the Bag of Holding/containers since this website was launched years ago. Y'all are laughable.
The part that really grinds my gears is they knew of many of these issues before release day. I don't mean issues like "Spell X doesn't show up on [Edge case]", I mean "This feature won't be included at all." A post in advance of the release saying "We're having problems implementing X, our timeline to have it live is Y" would have done wonders to ease community relations.
Public Mod Note(Stormknight): Circle of Spores was originally released in the Ravnica sourcebook, so please make sure you enable the "Magic: The Gathering" toggle in the character options
Sorry if this has been asked about but there are 52 pages of responses, but I bought Tasha's a few days ago and Circle of Spores still isn't unlocked as an option in the character creator.
Public Mod Note
(Stormknight):
Circle of Spores was originally released in the Ravnica sourcebook, so please make sure you enable the "Magic: The Gathering" toggle in the character options
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned (couldn't find it with search) but I'm not seeing Instinctual Pounce (barbarian optional class feature) appear on the character actions or features despite having selected it on the optional features tab in the class. Am I missing something?
Public Mod Note
(Stormknight):
It's there, but note that your character needs to be at least 7th level Barbarian
Using the Druid as an example "The spells in the following list expand the druid spell list in the Player’s Handbook." Druids may also prepare a certain number of spells from their spell list. So by RAW, those added spells should still appear on the PDF spells section even if they aren't prepared, like the rest of the spells the druid knows.
For me this is not a technical issue, and everything you and other 'defenders' cite on the technical challenges is completely valid and correct. For me this is a customer service and communication issue, and it comes down to the principle which used to prevail, that when someone pays for something they should receive it or if that is not feasible in the immediate moment they should be offered plausible, timely and clear explanations as to what the work plans (and whenever possible timelines) are for providing that which has been paid for.
The customer services attitudes on deliver of Tasha's reminds me of what you get from a monopoly such as BT (British Telecom) in the UK, where the seller / provider knows they're the only game in town with no competition and they can deliver stuff whenever they like as there is really no risk that customers go elsewhere. That is what annoys me. A little bit better communication and at effort on their part to convey more info would go a long way in satisfying me.
Hi there,
I'm sorry you feel that way - we've worked hard on resolving issues as well as making sure we've communicated what's going on - see the start of this thread.
Please can you explain what you feel that better communication would look like?
We're always looking to improve and, if we're falling short, I'd like to understand some specifics.
The Ranger Primal Companion isn't working due to a technical issue that requires a developer to resolve (as in the Game Content team can't resolve it). If I were to get a developer to explain in more detail what the problem is, I expect it would be even less informative than the current statement, as it would require knowledge of the internal code. I could have just written, "technical issue" but that felt lazy and generic. There is a genuine problem and like all of the other issues, it's in a resolution stack and assigned to people to resolve.
If it was known that things like sidekicks and the new animal companion would not be ready for the release, then that should be stated in the marketplace. As of now, if you look at TCoE in the marketplace, one would assume that everything in TCoE is working and available in the character builder. A simple notice that says "Sidekick and Animal Companion functionality coming soon!" would even work. Someone shouldn't have to delve into the bug report thread to find out what features are available at the time of purchase. Many of us spend a lot of money with DDB because the character builder and digital tools but if the tool set keeps lagging so far behind the currently released features (sidekicks, animal companions, piety, boons, containers) what is the point of continuing to use DDB?
With the expanded list of spells included in Tasha's has for the new classes these are not extra spells known just a larger variety of spells to choose from so unless you choose to prepare those spells you will not have them.
I think the issue they are referring to is that the spells aren't appearing in the list of available spells in the "Export to PDF" version of the Character Sheet.
In a campaign with shared content, my players were able to enable optional features, but once enabled the Optional Feature Manager said that they didn't have access and needed to go to the Marketplace to unlock additional features.
I don't know of this was already pointed out, but the spells "Gate" and "Weird" are missing as additional options for the Warlock's 9th level mystic arcanum. They're also the only additional arcanum spells that didn't originate from Tasha's, not sure if that has something to do with it.
Public Mod Note
(Stormknight):
Thanks, this issue is being tracked and is with the devs
Really minor visual glitch, but the icon in Sources for TCoE seems to zoom in too much on Tasha’s face, to the point where the edges of her head are not visible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All hail the great and mighty platypus.
Resisting is simply standing in front of the tide and pushing at it. Even if you endure at first, you will eventually break down. Adapting, by contrast, is turning into a fish.
-me
Rangers are not underpowered. They’re just exploration-oriented.
D&D Beyond always aims to present the rules exactly as described by Wizards of the Coast. As such, the team cannot make up things that don't exist in the rules (such as your aforementioned 'telekinetic hand') and present it as official or part of something official.
If a user wants to privately homebrew a modified version of Mage Hand for this purpose, they are free to do so.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Except that’s not entirely true, is it? DDB have made up things that don’t exist in the rules and presented it as official in order to work around deficiencies in their tools. If the revenant double-bladed scimitar can “exist,” why not Telekinetic Mage Hand?
All of the summon “whatever” spells are conjuration spells. Why would summon undead be classified as necromancy? I can see create undead being classified that way, but summoning something seems like it would always be conjuration, regardless of what is being summoned.
Because it is necromancy. Being listed as conjuration is a textual error.
Re- Telekinetic
Note that the telekinetic feat does not automatically increase the mage hand spell range to 60 feet. It only does if you already have mage hand -- hence the difficulty of simply creating another version mage hand spell with range 60 feet. There would need to be a code in the character builder that does the following:
But there's no way afaik of doing that in the current feat builder.
Currently, the range remains the default one in the spell tags, but the note below (in quotation) does appear at the end of the spell description. A player can further customize the spell on the digital character sheet ("customize" spell), and manually add note "Range: 60 feet", which will appear in the note section of the spell list.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
When adding in the Origin features of a homebrew race, and making it publically available they will be there which is fine. But when you try to make a new version (since you can’t edit the old one) they are gone and only the basic features are there. You have to recreate the origin (replacement) features again every time you want to update a race which is annoying, especially if you overlook it and have to start from scratch -.-. I really wish there was a neater way to update existing content.
Fighter optional fighting styles are completely broken
When optional rules are turned off, the optional styles appear
When optional rules are turned on and the fighting styles option is turned on, the optional styles don't appear
When optional rules are turned on and the fighting styles option is turned off, the optional styles appear
So far this session I have hit my teammates twice, flat-out missed 3 times, and only hit the enemy twice. Trust me, you don't want to borrow my dice.
Hey there, I just noticed that the tentacle of the deeps feature for the fathomless warlock isn't scaling to 2d8 at the 10th level. I'm just wondering is this a known issue or are there any plans to correct it?
fixed!
Just a random question, timeline wise and what not. Knowing full well the the Artificer class has new infusions, and a crap ton of new abilities that weren't the same as they were in UA or in Eberron, is there any timeline on when things for the Artificer may be getting pushed out? The initial post just says coming soon fort he infusions, but the armorer features are not mentioned specifically.
Yes that works for now, thank you for the tip!
Hello,
I tried searching this thread before asking. This question. I didn't anything about so:
I was trying to build a 5th V. Human Armorer Artificer and noticed I wasn't able to add 'Infusions Known'. The drop menu for each potential infusion was basically blank.
Thanks,
IT
My thoughts exactly! While I know every coding issue is different and difficult to estimate, that can be mitigated with a priority list and estimated completion dates. I mean DDB says they don't have a way to support sidekick rules, but those were introduced a year and a half ago in the Essential Kit. You honestly mean to tell me that in a year and a half you haven't even come close to solving that problem? DDB has been ignoring boons & the Bag of Holding/containers since this website was launched years ago. Y'all are laughable.
The part that really grinds my gears is they knew of many of these issues before release day. I don't mean issues like "Spell X doesn't show up on [Edge case]", I mean "This feature won't be included at all." A post in advance of the release saying "We're having problems implementing X, our timeline to have it live is Y" would have done wonders to ease community relations.
Sorry if this has been asked about but there are 52 pages of responses, but I bought Tasha's a few days ago and Circle of Spores still isn't unlocked as an option in the character creator.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned (couldn't find it with search) but I'm not seeing Instinctual Pounce (barbarian optional class feature) appear on the character actions or features despite having selected it on the optional features tab in the class. Am I missing something?
Using the Druid as an example "The spells in the following list expand the druid spell list in the Player’s Handbook." Druids may also prepare a certain number of spells from their spell list. So by RAW, those added spells should still appear on the PDF spells section even if they aren't prepared, like the rest of the spells the druid knows.
If it was known that things like sidekicks and the new animal companion would not be ready for the release, then that should be stated in the marketplace. As of now, if you look at TCoE in the marketplace, one would assume that everything in TCoE is working and available in the character builder. A simple notice that says "Sidekick and Animal Companion functionality coming soon!" would even work. Someone shouldn't have to delve into the bug report thread to find out what features are available at the time of purchase. Many of us spend a lot of money with DDB because the character builder and digital tools but if the tool set keeps lagging so far behind the currently released features (sidekicks, animal companions, piety, boons, containers) what is the point of continuing to use DDB?
I think the issue they are referring to is that the spells aren't appearing in the list of available spells in the "Export to PDF" version of the Character Sheet.
In a campaign with shared content, my players were able to enable optional features, but once enabled the Optional Feature Manager said that they didn't have access and needed to go to the Marketplace to unlock additional features.
I don't know of this was already pointed out, but the spells "Gate" and "Weird" are missing as additional options for the Warlock's 9th level mystic arcanum. They're also the only additional arcanum spells that didn't originate from Tasha's, not sure if that has something to do with it.
Really minor visual glitch, but the icon in Sources for TCoE seems to zoom in too much on Tasha’s face, to the point where the edges of her head are not visible.
All hail the great and mighty platypus.
Resisting is simply standing in front of the tide and pushing at it. Even if you endure at first, you will eventually break down. Adapting, by contrast, is turning into a fish.
-me
Rangers are not underpowered. They’re just exploration-oriented.
My homebrew setting: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/story-lore/94809-wakai-a-setting-inspired-by-japanese-folklore-and
This account is kinda old and I haven’t used it in a while