Appears to have errors. For example, it claims all MPMM races can choose their mental stat to cast their racial spells, but MPMM Aasimar can't.
EDIT: Did a quick skim, a few more errors leaped out at me, so here they are:
Aasimar have to use Charisma for their racial spell.
Tabaxi always had a climb speed, it was simply buffed from 20 to WS.
Githyanki and Githzerai are no longer Gith (they don't get the text that represents the new way to handle subraces), meaning that if you use the MPMM definitions, there are no Gith at all.
Fire Genasi darkvision was sidegraded to be in greyscale (it was in redscale before).
Fire Genasi darkvision was sidegraded to be in greyscale (it was in redscale before).
UNPLAYABLE!
(kidding)
This is good info, thanks for posting!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"[Radiant Consumption] No longer deals self-inflicted damage to the PC."
I've seen this said a lot, and I'm not sure why. Every creature within ten feet still RAW includes the aasimar using the feature. While the explicit text stating that the ability deals self damage is removed, if that was the intention, the new wording could state "Every other creature..."
It's minimal since basically no damage is getting through resistance after the change, but it seems like an assumption a lot of people have made from basically no concrete evidence, and since the wording isn't reprinted by most sources claiming this change, people seem to agree pretty universally, but at least I think it's a bad take.
^ By this logic spells that act on an area around self normally hit the caster since (for example: Arms of Hadar) they use the phrase "each creature in that area [within 10 feet of you]".
^ By this logic spells that act on an area around self normally hit the caster since (for example: Arms of Hadar) they use the phrase "each creature in that area [within 10 feet of you]".
This has been a problem for ages, so it's disappointing to see Wizards still repeating it; arms of hadar RAW hits the caster, but that's clearly not the intention as it would make it a terrible spell, but thunderclap explicitly excludes the caster from the effect.
They should definitely say "other creatures" because there is nothing in the rules to protect the caster otherwise, other than the fact that it's clearly not how it's supposed to work (for arms of hadar), for radiant consumption they've succeeded in making it less clear.
It's a really terrible book; they "fix" things that didn't need fixing, and break things that worked fine, all in one big cluster of resold nonsense, arguably even less clear phrasings, and built on a pyre of discontinued books that were better.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I had a look through the document linked and while it's largely correct, I advise caution as it has a few mistakes and has misunderstood a few rules.
The note about the Radiant Consumption trait of Aasimar is correct though - it doesn't do damage to the Aasimar character (the old version belonging to the Scourge Aasimar did).
^ By this logic spells that act on an area around self normally hit the caster since (for example: Arms of Hadar) they use the phrase "each creature in that area [within 10 feet of you]".
This has been a problem for ages, so it's disappointing to see Wizards still repeating it; arms of hadar RAW hits the caster, but that's clearly not the intention as it would make it a terrible spell, but thunderclap explicitly excludes the caster from the effect.
They should definitely say "other creatures" because there is nothing in the rules to protect the caster otherwise, other than the fact that it's clearly not how it's supposed to work (for arms of hadar), for radiant consumption they've succeeded in making it less clear.
Please also note that the wording of the Arms of Hadar spell does not mean that it damages the caster - this is not the case.
Reading the text for Arms, I would say it originates from you (like it says) meaning you are the hub of a sphere of tentacles pointing outward. With that setup, the hub wouldn't be hit, due to the tentacles going OUT from that point. to include yourself, the spell's effects would only be able to hit enemies in the adjacent square, since you are in one (5') and they are in another (10') The point of origin doesn't seem to include the square it's cast from.
Just my interpretation though.
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.
Reading the text for Arms, I would say it originates from you (like it says) meaning you are the hub of a sphere of tentacles pointing outward. With that setup, the hub wouldn't be hit, due to the tentacles going OUT from that point. to include yourself, the spell's effects would only be able to hit enemies in the adjacent square, since you are in one (5') and they are in another (10') The point of origin doesn't seem to include the square it's cast from.
Just my interpretation though.
I already linked this thread to the rule stating that spheres hit their point of origin.
This isn't really about understanding the game anymore, is it?
I'd love to see how often spells we think only affect other creatures use this phrasing and how often we think spells that do allow the caster to affect themselves use "you or another creature..." phrasing. Because I know, for instance, that some spells (example) that do allow you to affect yourself or another creature do use "you or another creature."
But again, I don't think that intentional misrepresenting/misreading of the rule provides much to the community here. Intentionality can be implied, and ignoring implied intentionality in the actual text is bothersome to understanding how people should play the game. I hope no one rules the way that the quote describes.
Unless you have a miraculous way to stop being within 10 feet of yourself, yes it does.
You are not within 10 feet of yourself, my dude, because you are yourself
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You are not within 10 feet of yourself, my dude, because you are yourself
This is a nonsensical statement; you being yourself does not mean you cease to be a creature within 10 feet of where you are.
Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that arms of hadar is intended to hit the caster (it'd be worthless if it did), but the wording of the spell and the rules are not clear as to that meaning; thunderclap by comparison is absolutely clear, and should be the template for all similar effects. But instead Wizards of the Coast has doubled down on the unclear wording instead, it's just one of many reasons why the quality of this new book is highly questionable (personally, I hate it).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You are not within 10 feet of yourself, my dude, because you are yourself
This is a nonsensical statement; you being yourself does not mean you cease to be a creature within 10 feet of where you are.
It really isn't. You're just using the wrong definition of "within". The one you're using implies two separate objects
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"[Radiant Consumption] No longer deals self-inflicted damage to the PC."
I've seen this said a lot, and I'm not sure why. Every creature within ten feet still RAW includes the aasimar using the feature. While the explicit text stating that the ability deals self damage is removed, if that was the intention, the new wording could state "Every other creature..."
It's minimal since basically no damage is getting through resistance after the change, but it seems like an assumption a lot of people have made from basically no concrete evidence, and since the wording isn't reprinted by most sources claiming this change, people seem to agree pretty universally, but at least I think it's a bad take.
Thank you for the feedback. The exact wording from Volo's was "...at the end of each of your turns, you and each creature within 10 feet of you take radiant damage equal to half your level (rounded up)." The new text changes it to "...at the end of each of your turns, each creature within 10 feet of you takes radiant damage equal to your proficiency bonus."
I understand your position is that you, the caster, are 'within 10 feet' by existing at the center, but I do not believe that is the intended effect any more. Otherwise, they would keep the previous written description and would not have removed 'you' from the equation.
"[Radiant Consumption] No longer deals self-inflicted damage to the PC."
I've seen this said a lot, and I'm not sure why. Every creature within ten feet still RAW includes the aasimar using the feature. While the explicit text stating that the ability deals self damage is removed, if that was the intention, the new wording could state "Every other creature..."
It's minimal since basically no damage is getting through resistance after the change, but it seems like an assumption a lot of people have made from basically no concrete evidence, and since the wording isn't reprinted by most sources claiming this change, people seem to agree pretty universally, but at least I think it's a bad take.
Thank you for the feedback. The exact wording from Volo's was "...at the end of each of your turns, you and each creature within 10 feet of you take radiant damage equal to half your level (rounded up)." The new text changes it to "...at the end of each of your turns, each creature within 10 feet of you takes radiant damage equal to your proficiency bonus."
I understand your position is that you, the caster, are 'within 10 feet' by existing at the center, but I do not believe that is the intended effect any more. Otherwise, they would keep the previous written description and would not have removed 'you' from the equation.
It really isn't. You're just using the wrong definition of "within". The one you're using implies two separate objects
There is only one definition for within, it's basically a synonym of inside; in the case of spells etc. it means "inside a range".
If you create a range that describes an area around yourself, then you will always be inside that area. Nothing in the rules prevents this. Again, I don't believe that that's the intention for arms of hadar, but it's the result of sloppy rules writing, especially when you look at other examples.
This is now the third time that I am mentioning it, but thunderclap does the same basic thing, but does so completely unambiguously, by excluding the caster explicitly excluding the caster; if "within" somehow meant "up to a range of N feet excluding the caster" as you suggest then there would be no need for that extra language.
And yet again, I do not believe for a moment that arms of hadar is supposed to hit the caster, but I am also not for one instant going to pretend that the spell isn't badly worded; and I'm not sure why people have such a hard time accepting that it is?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It really isn't. You're just using the wrong definition of "within". The one you're using implies two separate objects
The rules for AOE's are pretty straightforward though.
Cone, Cube and Line all say that the point of origin isn't included in the area unless the caster chooses it to be. Cylinder and Sphere say that the point of origin is included in the area.
So unless the spell description explicitly creates an exception (which Arms of Hadar doesn't do) then the point of origin is always affected. It sucks for spells that has a range of self and does damage but that's the way the rules work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Found this spreadsheet and thread on reddit and thought it was pretty useful to compare what's new with MoTM.
https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/ure5qd/monsters_of_the_multiverse_patch_notes_writeup/
PbP 🎲: Tyekanik; Moneo Noree; Korba Muris; & occasional DM:
Appears to have errors. For example, it claims all MPMM races can choose their mental stat to cast their racial spells, but MPMM Aasimar can't.
EDIT: Did a quick skim, a few more errors leaped out at me, so here they are:
UNPLAYABLE!
(kidding)
This is good info, thanks for posting!
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
"[Radiant Consumption] No longer deals self-inflicted damage to the PC."
I've seen this said a lot, and I'm not sure why. Every creature within ten feet still RAW includes the aasimar using the feature. While the explicit text stating that the ability deals self damage is removed, if that was the intention, the new wording could state "Every other creature..."
It's minimal since basically no damage is getting through resistance after the change, but it seems like an assumption a lot of people have made from basically no concrete evidence, and since the wording isn't reprinted by most sources claiming this change, people seem to agree pretty universally, but at least I think it's a bad take.
^ By this logic spells that act on an area around self normally hit the caster since (for example: Arms of Hadar) they use the phrase "each creature in that area [within 10 feet of you]".
This has been a problem for ages, so it's disappointing to see Wizards still repeating it; arms of hadar RAW hits the caster, but that's clearly not the intention as it would make it a terrible spell, but thunderclap explicitly excludes the caster from the effect.
They should definitely say "other creatures" because there is nothing in the rules to protect the caster otherwise, other than the fact that it's clearly not how it's supposed to work (for arms of hadar), for radiant consumption they've succeeded in making it less clear.
It's a really terrible book; they "fix" things that didn't need fixing, and break things that worked fine, all in one big cluster of resold nonsense, arguably even less clear phrasings, and built on a pyre of discontinued books that were better.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersI had a look through the document linked and while it's largely correct, I advise caution as it has a few mistakes and has misunderstood a few rules.
The note about the Radiant Consumption trait of Aasimar is correct though - it doesn't do damage to the Aasimar character (the old version belonging to the Scourge Aasimar did).
Please also note that the wording of the Arms of Hadar spell does not mean that it damages the caster - this is not the case.
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!"🔊
Unless you have a miraculous way to stop being within 10 feet of yourself, yes it does.
There are exactly two possibilities:
1) Arms of Hadar is not a sphere, in which case it simply hits all creatures within 10 feet of you. You are a creature within 10 feet of you. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#TargetingYourself
2) Arms of Hadar is a sphere, since it uses the term radius, in which case, since you're the point of origin for it, it hits you. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Sphere
Reading the text for Arms, I would say it originates from you (like it says) meaning you are the hub of a sphere of tentacles pointing outward. With that setup, the hub wouldn't be hit, due to the tentacles going OUT from that point. to include yourself, the spell's effects would only be able to hit enemies in the adjacent square, since you are in one (5') and they are in another (10') The point of origin doesn't seem to include the square it's cast from.
Just my interpretation though.
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 already linked this thread to the rule stating that spheres hit their point of origin.
This isn't really about understanding the game anymore, is it?
I'd love to see how often spells we think only affect other creatures use this phrasing and how often we think spells that do allow the caster to affect themselves use "you or another creature..." phrasing. Because I know, for instance, that some spells (example) that do allow you to affect yourself or another creature do use "you or another creature."
But again, I don't think that intentional misrepresenting/misreading of the rule provides much to the community here. Intentionality can be implied, and ignoring implied intentionality in the actual text is bothersome to understanding how people should play the game. I hope no one rules the way that the quote describes.
You are not within 10 feet of yourself, my dude, because you are yourself
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is a nonsensical statement; you being yourself does not mean you cease to be a creature within 10 feet of where you are.
Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that arms of hadar is intended to hit the caster (it'd be worthless if it did), but the wording of the spell and the rules are not clear as to that meaning; thunderclap by comparison is absolutely clear, and should be the template for all similar effects. But instead Wizards of the Coast has doubled down on the unclear wording instead, it's just one of many reasons why the quality of this new book is highly questionable (personally, I hate it).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It really isn't. You're just using the wrong definition of "within". The one you're using implies two separate objects
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Hello, all! I was the OP on that Reddit thread.
I have been correcting anything I have missed/got incorrect. However, I hadn't been near my computer as my wife has been in recovery from surgery.
As soon as I can, I will correct all of the mistakes y'all have mentioned here. Thank you all so much!
Thank you for the feedback. The exact wording from Volo's was "...at the end of each of your turns, you and each creature within 10 feet of you take radiant damage equal to half your level (rounded up)." The new text changes it to "...at the end of each of your turns, each creature within 10 feet of you takes radiant damage equal to your proficiency bonus."
I understand your position is that you, the caster, are 'within 10 feet' by existing at the center, but I do not believe that is the intended effect any more. Otherwise, they would keep the previous written description and would not have removed 'you' from the equation.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersOh wow, I hope your wife recovers quickly. Wishing you both all the best. ❤️
If there's any questions I can help you with for your list, please reach out. 😊
-- Faith
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!"🔊
Agreed
There is only one definition for within, it's basically a synonym of inside; in the case of spells etc. it means "inside a range".
If you create a range that describes an area around yourself, then you will always be inside that area. Nothing in the rules prevents this. Again, I don't believe that that's the intention for arms of hadar, but it's the result of sloppy rules writing, especially when you look at other examples.
This is now the third time that I am mentioning it, but thunderclap does the same basic thing, but does so completely unambiguously, by excluding the caster explicitly excluding the caster; if "within" somehow meant "up to a range of N feet excluding the caster" as you suggest then there would be no need for that extra language.
And yet again, I do not believe for a moment that arms of hadar is supposed to hit the caster, but I am also not for one instant going to pretend that the spell isn't badly worded; and I'm not sure why people have such a hard time accepting that it is?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The rules for AOE's are pretty straightforward though.
Cone, Cube and Line all say that the point of origin isn't included in the area unless the caster chooses it to be.
Cylinder and Sphere say that the point of origin is included in the area.
So unless the spell description explicitly creates an exception (which Arms of Hadar doesn't do) then the point of origin is always affected. It sucks for spells that has a range of self and does damage but that's the way the rules work.