# ELEMENTAL EVIL Player's Companion - FREE!



## DaveDash (Mar 10, 2015)

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'm pretty happy with the spell list. There is the return of a few old spells in there.

No Cleric spells though which is interesting?


----------



## delericho (Mar 10, 2015)

I take it this was the free supplement that was announced when they 'cancelled' the "Adventurer's Handbook"? Or is that something else?


----------



## Klaus (Mar 10, 2015)

woot! I can finally share my Aarakocra, Genasi and Whirlwing spell illustrations!


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 10, 2015)

Why no cleric spells?  Odd.


----------



## Nebulous (Mar 10, 2015)

Klaus said:


> woot! I can finally share my Aarakocra, Genasi and Whirlwing spell illustrations!




nice.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 10, 2015)

They had mentioned that they intend to do something along the line of "Adventure path + players guide" as major fixtures in the publishing schedule.

This would be the player's guide portion of that.  I would expect that some descendant of the Temple of Elemental Evil will be the Adventure.


----------



## jarandus (Mar 10, 2015)

I too am a little disappointed that there are no cleric spells or elemental cleric domains.


----------



## Chimpy (Mar 10, 2015)

Just grabbed this and it looks really cool (although I usually DM rather than play a character)


----------



## Osgood (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm pretty disappointed there aren't any feats (other than the gnome one) or sub-class options. I was really hoping we'd see an elemental cleric and warlock build. If this is all the content they had in mind, I can see why this never went to print. I guess I can't complain too much, it was free after all.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 10, 2015)

Races are pretty solid! Though I still prefer the "beautiful plumage" art of the aarakocra, I suppose that image is just an internet search away, and the critters are recognizably aarakocra, despite all the additional story details about elemental earth and the wind dukes of aaqa that I'm a little "meh" on. 

Spells look curious. A lot of damaging and elemental spells, perhaps as would be expected. The returns of some old favorites, too.

Looks like fun!

I've got a feeling that the "no new cleric spells" thing is intentional, thanks to "clerics know every spell on their spell list." It didn't totally stop druids, but they did create a "druids aren't going to get every spell on this list added to their own spell list automatically" warning. 

And REALLY SOLID art. Even with uggo tieflings and eagle-aarakocra.


----------



## Chimpy (Mar 10, 2015)

Yeah I guess an elemental warlock might have been quite nice. I think the cleric has enough build options as it is already!


----------



## delericho (Mar 10, 2015)

One thing I'm sorry not to see (though it's a small thing): Some sample backgrounds/bonds/etc.

"Hoard of the Dragon Queen" had a few of these in a single-page appendix at the end, and they're generally a good idea - a way to tie any PC into the storyline of the adventure.

Of course, it's entirely possible that the adventure itself will include these. And in any case they're a nice-to-have, not a requirement.


----------



## meomwt (Mar 10, 2015)

They have the usual fun "small print" bit on page 2. 



> Disclaimer: For safe utilization of elemental magic, remember the following guidelines. You can drink water but not fire. You can breathe air but not earth. You can walk on earth but not on
> water (unless you have the right pair of boots or spell). You can do a lot of things with fire, but almost all of them are bad ideas.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 10, 2015)

Some good spells in there, bit worried about power creep, but on the whole I like to have more options than less. 

I cant see myself using any of the races.


----------



## Wolfskin (Mar 10, 2015)

Nice! I wonder if some of the new player options will be eventually printed in some other sourcebook (didn't Goliaths first appear in Dark Sun?)


----------



## Klaus (Mar 10, 2015)

Wolfskin said:


> Nice! I wonder if some of the new player options will be eventually printed in some other sourcebook (didn't Goliaths first appear in Dark Sun?)




No, goliaths were created for the 3.5 sourcebook Races of Stone. Dark Sun had half-giants, but these were much larger and stronger.


----------



## Ramaster (Mar 10, 2015)

We got freacking AARAKOCRAS as player races and not Aasimars?!

One would have thought that WoTC had their double A priorities straight.  _...snip..._

*Mod Edit: * Sorry, but no politics, even as jokes.  ~Umbran


----------



## Paraxis (Mar 10, 2015)

Paladins didn't receive any new spells either.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 10, 2015)

Ramaster said:
			
		

> We got freacking AARAKOCRAS as player races and not Aasimars?!




Crack open the DMG, bro. 

(I'll be playin' an aasimar shadow monk in a campaign starting in a few weeks!)


----------



## MoonSong (Mar 10, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Crack open the DMG, bro.
> 
> (I'll be playin' an aasimar shadow monk in a campaign starting in a few weeks!)




I believe Ramaster meant aasimar as allowed AL races.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 10, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Races are pretty solid! Though I still prefer the "beautiful plumage" art of the aarakocra, I suppose that image is just an internet search away, and the critters are recognizably aarakocra, despite all the additional story details about elemental earth and the wind dukes of aaqa that I'm a little "meh" on.




The description mentions them being colored like actual birds: males as being wildly colorful and the females more subdued in coloration. So the pictured bird is intended as female.

This apparently dates back to 2e, according to Echohawk's Aarakocra ENCylopedia entry.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 10, 2015)

Any chance of a hassle and hoop free download link?

You know, where you click a link and then your document is downloaded, full stop.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 10, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> I believe Ramaster meant aasimar as allowed AL races.




I don't believe aakocra are among the allowed AL races, either....?



> The description mentions them being colored like actual birds: males as being wildly colorful and the females more subdued in coloration. So the pictured bird is intended as female.




Good catch! I suppose it's about time the lady aakocra got an image -- and without a "birdboobs" controversy!


----------



## Klaus (Mar 10, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Good catch! I suppose it's about time the lady aakocra got an image -- and without a "birdboobs" controversy!




Pleased to oblige.


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 10, 2015)

I can see why Aarakocra aren't allowed in the AL, who wants to deal with 3D combat before you have to, it's also a cheap fix for a lot of challenges you could set an adventuring party.


----------



## Roger (Mar 10, 2015)

_Skywrite_ may be my new favourite spell.  I'll be casting that all day, every day.

No, you can't use it to write a _glyph of insanity_, but nice try.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2015)

Woot! Goliath is back! (Though the rolled DR thing seems wonky). Its also nice to have genasi back. I'm neutral about aarakroca and deep gnomes (don't care either way) but seeing some of those classic D&D spells back (dust devil! minute meteors! Abi-dazim getting credit for his spell again) makes me very happy. 

WotC can release these things every 6 months and I'll be a happy camper.


----------



## MoonSong (Mar 10, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't believe aakocra are among the allowed AL races, either....?




Sorry, projected myself in that one. Still a let down.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2015)

25 pages? I remember Mearls saying there were around 300 pages. Maybe more to come? At least it is released in March like it was supposed to.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Mar 10, 2015)

A few quick thoughts:

* for the first time we have a race-specific feat. I thin this is a good way to model the abilities of more powerful races within the parameters of 5e. (I suggested it for modelling Yuan-ti purebloods here). I think this is a good thing.
* The large number of new cantrips is interesting, especially since there's a hard limit on them for spell casting classes. Magic Adept feat can now be used to add elemental flavouring to any class fairly easily. That's cool.
* Magic Stone particularly, since it allows sling attacks using a spell casting ability (CHA from Warlock; WID from Druids). I can now build a slinger rogue whose main ability is Wisdom or Charisma without sacrificing Sneak attack.
* Aarakocra are pretty powerful, with both flight and natural weapons (which no other race has). But still another DEX-basd race? 
* Goliath's powerful build won't impact many games, but for those who do track encumbrance, it's great.
* Goliath's cold adaptation also a very clean implementation of something that (again) won't impact many games. (Reference is to DMG p. 110). 
* the gnoll in the whirlwind is some great art!


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Mar 10, 2015)

What's with all the complaints about what is a free product stuffed with usable content?  

Check your privilege, ENWorld!


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> 25 pages? I remember Mearls saying there were around 300 pages. Maybe more to come? At least it is released in March like it was supposed to.




The module is 300 pages. Once they ditched the Adventurer's Handbook, they always said it was going to be a small PDF of the PC-stuff from Princes + some extra races.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> The module is 300 pages. Once they ditched the Adventurer's Handbook, they always said it was going to be a small PDF of the PC-stuff from Princes + some extra races.




I thought Mearls said to Morrus that the Handbook was also around 300 pages long.

Edit: Found the post. It was Mearls on twitter. It is indeed PoT that is around 300 pages.


----------



## Skyscraper (Mar 10, 2015)

Fun stuff. Elemental spells can be usefully reflavored to fit into a lot of stuff, e.g. a fire cult, and so on.

I like some flavorful tidbits, e.g. the wall of water that gives disavantage on ranged attack rolls, but you can freeze it and then break it and afterwards there's a hole in the wall.

As for the new races, they look fine.


----------



## nightspaladin (Mar 10, 2015)

Like what I see. But would love to see some subclasses. Maybe we don't because they want to have a better handle on what is working and what isn't before they begin issuing more subclasses(i.e. the purpose of those surveys). Still it seems a waste not to have some obvious tie ins, especially in classes that need more subclasses. An Elemental Sorcerer Build seems pretty archetypical, and yet is nigh impossible to recreate with current builds.

That being said, seeing a small doc like this every 3 or 4 months would help alot. Or of course they could just release stuff every month, in some sort of subscription....if only there was a name for such a thing........


----------



## Mercule (Mar 10, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> The module is 300 pages.



Cite/how sure are you of this? I was just searching for this info, yesterday, and couldn't come up with the answer.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2015)

Mercule said:


> Cite/how sure are you of this? I was just searching for this info, yesterday, and couldn't come up with the answer.




Mearls said it on twitter a whilte back. Between 256 and 300 something. Printers work in 32 pages increments.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 10, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Races are pretty solid!



Yup. I've never liked the genasi, but that write-up just kind of clicked with me. Not sure if there was anything actually new, but I liked this one. I like the way they did goliaths, too. (Indifferent to the other races, but I'd allow them in a game.)



Chimpy said:


> Yeah I guess an elemental warlock might have been quite nice.



Hadn't thought of that. Very cool idea. If nothing else, I can imagine someone finding a genie's lamp and wishing to know magic. No reason someone couldn't pact with the Wind Dukes, too.

I might have to take a shot at writing something up.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Mearls said it on twitter a whilte back. Between 256 and 300 something. Printers work in 32 pages increments.



Oh, yeah. I kinda remember that. Seems like the actual number was 288, which raised a few eyebrows because it's a "non-standard" length for a gaming book.

Maybe I just mentally averaged it, though, and it was the large range that got questions.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 10, 2015)

Thoughts:


Maybe this will sate the beast for a bit and we won't see so many threads complaining about the 5E release schedule.
Non-fire sorcerers get a decent boost, but not as much as I was hoping. Cold sorcs do pretty well out of the deal. _Frostbite,_ _ice knife_, and _Snilloc's snowball swarm_ bolster them at low levels, and at the higher end, _investiture of ice_ is a strong alternative to _Otiluke's freezing sphere_. Lightning and acid sorcs don't get as much love, but they do see their mid-range options beefed up by _storm sphere_ and _vitriolic sphere_, respectively. Poison sorcs can go cry in the corner.
Aarakocra can fly starting at level 1. Good deal. 4E tried to balance aarakocra by denying them the ability to fly until Paragon tier, and that never sat well with me. 5E's approach is much better--just give 'em the darn wings, and add a sidebar warning for DMs about the possible consequences of low-level flight.
Love the new elemental cantrips.
I foresee shenanigans around _create bonfire_ and the warlock invocation that lets you push people with _eldritch blast_. Great way to make life hell for opponents in tight corridors.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 10, 2015)

I am quite happy with this offering, especially for free. I wonder why the PDF was pushed through DTRPG rather than the articles format on the D&D website?


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 10, 2015)

neobolts said:


> I am quite happy with this offering, especially for free. I wonder why the PDF was pushed through DTRPG rather than the articles format on the D&D website?



Perhaps a kind soul could put a copy on Dropbox for us who can't easily get it from rpg stores?

Thanks.


neobolts said:


> I am quite happy with this offering, especially for free. I wonder why the PDF was pushed through DTRPG rather than the articles format on the D&D website?


----------



## Kobold Stew (Mar 10, 2015)

neobolts said:


> I am quite happy with this offering, especially for free. I wonder why the PDF was pushed through DTRPG rather than the articles format on the D&D website?




Two main reasons I can think of:

1. They can track downloads more efficiently (and anything posted elsewhere is watermarked and so traceable to the first downloader). This lets them tell their stakeholders they are doing something about piracy.

2. Because it supports the hobby, directing traffic to another site that sells rpg materials. 

I suspect #2 is of less importance to WOTC, but I'd be surprised if no one was pleased at the result.


----------



## Manchu (Mar 10, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Maybe this will sate the beast for a bit and we won't see so many threads complaining about the 5E release schedule.



I can only speak for myself, but a 25-page PDF is not what I have in mind when I'm wondering why WotC seems so hesitant to print D&D products.


----------



## neobolts (Mar 10, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> Two main reasons I can think of:
> 1. They can track downloads more efficiently (and anything posted elsewhere is watermarked and so traceable to the first downloader). This lets them tell their stakeholders they are doing something about piracy.




I was thinking of this too. DTRPG already runs WotC's "classics" website. Maybe this is a trial run of things to come, gauging if they can move forward with current pay materials with DTRPG.


----------



## Ramaster (Mar 10, 2015)

I skimmed the DMG, but never got around to finish reading it. I didn't realize that they included stats for the Aasimar, neat!

My joke was unfortunate and in hindsight I shouldn't have done it (I thought it was OK because this is a UK-based site. I'm not even from the USA myself!). I apologize.

This PDF is solid work by Mearls and Co. The Flying on aarakocras is bothersome to me and I would not allow them in my games. Goliaths are looking great though.


----------



## raphaelus (Mar 10, 2015)

*hyperventilates*

---
Ok, now, that I've skimmed it, I'm stoked for the new races, particularly the return of the Goliaths. I think 4e did a good job highlighting the flavors the different races brought in their Player Handbooks. Also, elemental spells! Love the ice ones, and I now can satisfactorily make that earth focused transmuter rock gnome concept I had. 

I would like more racial exclusive feats for races like the ones in this supplement (and tieflings, dragonborns, and shifters), who derive abilities from the uniqueness of their nature. In the air genasi, it was hinted the connection to the old concept of the storm genasi (crystals on hair on some of them). This screams feat!


----------



## bogmad (Mar 10, 2015)

A spell list with schools and ritual tags!!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 10, 2015)

Manchu said:


> I can only speak for myself, but a 25-page PDF is not what I have in mind when I'm wondering why WotC seems so hesitant to print D&D products.




I agree.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

Why hello Earthbind.  A  must prepare spell for any adventurer planning on taking on a dragon 

And am I the only one who wishes catapult worked on halflings?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why hello Earthbind.  A  must prepare spell for any adventurer planning on taking on a dragon
> 
> And am I the only one who wishes catapult worked on halflings?




It does! You just need to prepare it as an 8th level spell. (which does 10d8 damage to the target, and presumably the halfling as well).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 10, 2015)

Ramaster said:


> I skimmed the DMG, but never got around to finish reading it. I didn't realize that they included stats for the Aasimar, neat!




And the 4e-style eladrin, if you're into blink elves!



> This PDF is solid work by Mearls and Co. The Flying on aarakocras is bothersome to me and I would not allow them in my games. Goliaths are looking great though.




I really love how 5e isn't afraid to put options out there that not everyone will use. Rather than trying to water-down the aarakocra to please everyone who doesn't like flying at an early level, they just let the aarakocra be what they are and rely on DMs who don't like the thing to say "not in my game, buddy." That's awesome. It helps say something about games that both allow them and games that aren't interested in 'em, lets the DM take games in their own direction, and doesn't worry about making "knock-offs" that try to please everyone. 

Aarakocra aren't fit for every table. Neither are tieflings or dragonborn or eladrin or gnomes or halflings or whatever. It's OK that they're an option. We don't have to treat them as marketable brand identity that must be harped on at every opportunity. 

Another interesting note: the races don't fit snugly into the "four elements." Aarakocra are obviously air, but both svirfneblin and goliaths are both earth, and genasi are all four. There's no "just water" PC race or "just fire" PC race. I wonder if there's a story reason for that (ie, the four races here play a big role in the adventure, others don't), or if it was just sort of a random draw.


----------



## The Grand User (Mar 10, 2015)

I for one quite appreciate the 1st level flight aarakocras. I've long since come to the conclusion that flight at any level, whether 1st or later is only as unbalanced as the GM lets it, and it isn't actually that hard to deal with. It also opens up opportunities for different kinds of puzzles that take flight into account than the pit traps it obsoletes (and that's only if the whole party doesn't have flight).

You do have to be careful to not throw grouned-meleeists when there's only fliers with ranged attacks, but that's actually unlikely to happen in a party situation, there will still most likely be grounded melee PCs to face off against them. And if not, the GM can take that into account.

That said, I can also understand why they aren't going to allow it for the organized play, as not ever GM may be up for dealing with them, and some parts of the adventure might be a bit too easy if one or more (or a whole party) are involved.


----------



## Goblinerd (Mar 10, 2015)

DaveDash said:


> No Cleric spells though which is interesting?



Disappointing is more like it... Clerics get shafted, their the only Full caster with no new spells. Meanwhile, the other fullcaster classes also get new cantrips... but not the cleric...


----------



## bogmad (Mar 10, 2015)

Goblinerd said:


> Disappointing is more like it... Clerics get shafted, their the only Full caster with no new spells. Meanwhile, the other fullcaster classes also get new cantrips... but not the cleric...




Maybe they're saving elemental priests for Dark Sun or something beyond the scope of a 25 page document?  One can hope anyways.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

Goblinerd said:


> Disappointing is more like it... Clerics get shafted, their the only Full caster with no new spells. Meanwhile, the other fullcaster classes also get new cantrips... but not the cleric...




Shafted seems a weird word to use.  This is an optional add on. They don't have to have something for every class.  And no class is suddenly getting extra powerful by using these things.  They are just additional options.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Thoughts:
> 
> 
> Maybe this will sate the beast for a bit and we won't see so many threads complaining about the 5E release schedule.



You're having a laugh right? 

A 25 page PDF with stuff I most likely won't be using does not quench my product thirst.


----------



## Goblinerd (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Shafted seems a weird word to use.  This is an optional add on. They don't have to have something for every class.  And no class is suddenly getting extra powerful by using these things.  They are just additional options.




I get what you're saying, but I still feel strongly that at least a few options for clerics and even Paladins should have been incorporated. Clerics already have a single Attack spell, which makes the Potent spellcasting feature a dull affair.

I'm sure if theey'd released the Adventurer's Handbook as planned, there'd have been more options...


----------



## Goblinerd (Mar 10, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> You're having a laugh right?
> 
> 
> A 25 page PDF with stuff I most likely won't be using does not quench my product thirst.




Agreed.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 10, 2015)

Remathilis said:


> The module is 300 pages. Once they ditched the Adventurer's Handbook, they always said it was going to be a small PDF of the PC-stuff from Princes + some extra races.




It's 256 pages. From what I've heard.


----------



## Goblinerd (Mar 10, 2015)

bogmad said:


> Maybe they're saving elemental priests for Dark Sun or something beyond the scope of a 25 page document?  One can hope anyways.




Considering they only handed this PDF out because they cancelled the Adventurer's Handbook, I won't hold my breath for a Dark Sun one. 
WotC has already gone on record as saying they don't want to come out with too many books and focus on adventure paths... I'm not asking for 3.5 scale product launches, but it would be better IMO if they released a few splats and campaign books too. The community seems to be convinced they're coming out and clearly have voiced an interest for them, I just hope WotC will listen... I'm doubtful though, it just seems to me like WotC has shrunk the D&D department and given them very little leeway and resources. It almost reads like a company on the verge of bankruptcy


----------



## True_Blue (Mar 10, 2015)

Since I mainly want newer books for new crunch, and not fluff, this definitely sates some of my hunger for new books.  The fact that this is given out for free is excellent.  When it comes to fluff, I have all the books I need from past editions.  And if I keep getting rules stuff for free, I may not have to spend much on this edition to have everything I want.

Count me very happy with this.


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Mar 10, 2015)

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but, for those not wanting to go through drivethru, its up on the WotC website now as well.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elemental-evil-player’s-companion


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 10, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> [*]Maybe this will sate the beast for a bit and we won't see so many threads complaining about the 5E release schedule.




They cancel the Adventurer's Handbook and release a 25-page pdf instead, with no notice*. So, no. If anything, the lack of information about the release makes me more nervous. I found out about it on Reddit, since it had already been pushed down out of view on the front page here.
A version that doesn't devour my ink cartridges would be nice too....

Cute disclaimer.

*If there was an announced release date for this, then I withdraw this point. I hadn't heard one.


----------



## bogmad (Mar 10, 2015)

Goblinerd said:


> Considering they only handed this PDF out because they cancelled the Adventurer's Handbook, I won't hold my breath for a Dark Sun one.
> WotC has already gone on record as saying they don't want to come out with too many books and focus on adventure paths... I'm not asking for 3.5 scale product launches, but it would be better IMO if they released a few splats and campaign books too. The community seems to be convinced they're coming out and clearly have voiced an interest for them, I just hope WotC will listen... I'm doubtful though, it just seems to me like WotC has shrunk the D&D department and given them very little leeway and resources. It almost reads like a company on the verge of bankruptcy




I expect there'll be a document for Dark Sun at some point, if only a "playtest" doc like they did for Eberron.  A full product launch? Yeah, that's not something I'm holding my breath on.  

But no cleric love in here I get.  Given how cleric spellcasting works you can't just add new spells without potentially unbalancing the entire class, _unless_ you do it through a subclass and perhaps add new domain spells.  Seems they made a point to no have any subclass options in this pdf.  So no new cleric options.  If they went ahead and threw a cleric subclass in here just because of how they got left out of spells I think this whole thread would derail into people complaining how the sorcerer got mistreated. 
Can't please everyone, but I'm pretty happy with what they gave us.  For Free.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet, but, for those not wanting to go through drivethru, its up on the WotC website now as well.
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elemental-evil-player’s-companion




Interesting. I wonder if they used DTRPG first to avoid a crash of their site with all the traffic the PDF would have created.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 10, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Interesting. I wonder if they used DTRPG first to avoid a crash of their site with all the traffic the PDF would have created.




I find it unlikely this will generate more traffic than the Basic Rules. Did that crash the site at any point?


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 10, 2015)

Its nice, but its does feel like they started something bigger, like the book they announced, and stopped. At some point the cleric elemental domain(s), shai'r warlock, elemental sorcerer, oath of chaos paladin...etc and so on where outlined, then dropped for for whatever reason.



neobolts said:


> I am quite happy with this offering, especially for free. I wonder why the PDF was pushed through DTRPG rather than the articles format on the D&D website?




Its a final supplement to a print product (which will also be available as PDF????) vs a playtest article. At least thats one guess.

EDIT: and now its on the wotc site. Doesn't change my answer, I guess.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

Well, I've already rolled a goliath paladin of the ancients    Whenever we don't have the time or enough of the group, we do one-off arena style sessions.  It's a 50 level tower, where each level is a different challenge.  A great way to try out new PCs and get a good feel of the game when our regular campaigns aren't doable.


----------



## Serrrg (Mar 10, 2015)

It is interesting, that the size of the PDF at the wizards page is bigger, than the one at DTRPG


----------



## evilbob (Mar 10, 2015)

Does anyone know if these free updates will be added to the "Basic" rules?  Seems like they might as well, since they're all available freely - and that would just make it easier to get to them.


----------



## Bupp (Mar 10, 2015)

I like the free stuff.  Honestly I've only skimmed through it, reading parts that caught my eye or could be used in my game.  

I'm a big fan of more spells.  Just because they are there, doesn't mean they all have to be used, or that your wizard instantly knows more spells than before.

I think each of the races have limitations against being an everyday character.  Look like fun choices for a one shot, a drop in player, or for use with character pools.  (Warning, shameless self promotion).


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 10, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I really love how 5e isn't afraid to put options out there that not everyone will use. Rather than trying to water-down the aarakocra to please everyone who doesn't like flying at an early level, they just let the aarakocra be what they are and rely on DMs who don't like the thing to say "not in my game, buddy." That's awesome. It helps say something about games that both allow them and games that aren't interested in 'em, lets the DM take games in their own direction, and doesn't worry about making "knock-offs" that try to please everyone.



If they only had displayed this level of awesome already in the PHB... Then you could have said something like:

I really love how 5e isn't afraid to put options out there that not everyone will use. Rather than trying to water-down the beastmaster to please everyone who doesn't like powerful and independent animal companions at an early level, they just let the ranger subclass be what they are and rely on DMs who don't like the thing to say "not in my game, buddy." That's awesome.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 10, 2015)

I am both totally unsurprised yet nevertheless disappointed that the first player supplement is mostly cool stuff for Wizards.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 10, 2015)

Kiraya_TiDrekan said:


> Not sure if this has been posted yet, but, for those not wanting to go through drivethru, its up on the WotC website now as well.
> 
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/elemental-evil-player’s-companion



Thanks a bunch. 

If you just care about the download and not any of the preamble crap, this is the link 
http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/EE_PlayersCompanion.pdf


----------



## Klaus (Mar 10, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> * the gnoll in the whirlwind is some great art!




Thanks!


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

"Here's a bunch of new *free *stuff for your games!"
"There's not enough.  You suck."


SMH....


----------



## Greg Benage (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Shafted seems a weird word to use.  This is an optional add on. They don't have to have something for every class.  And no class is suddenly getting extra powerful by using these things.  They are just additional options.




"Shafted" is probably too strong, but it's irksome that my tempest cleric has no access to any or all of:

* Gust
* Shape water
* Thunderclap
* Tidal wave
* Control winds
* Maelstrom

...to name the obvious ones. The druid was already a better tempest cleric than the tempest cleric above 9th level; these new spells now give me druid-envy at lower levels as well.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

Greg Benage said:


> "Shafted" is probably too strong, but it's irksome that my tempest cleric has no access to any or all of:
> 
> * Gust
> * Shape water
> ...




Valid concerns.  I suppose what I'd do is tell your DM just what you told me.  If I was your DM, I'd say, "You're right.  Those spells make sense.  Knock yourself out and add them to your list of preparable spells"


----------



## tomservo999 (Mar 10, 2015)

No cleric spells, but that's no big deal to me. I already have custom Earth, Air, Fire, and Water domains. Now I can edit them and give them more appropriate spells


----------



## nightspaladin (Mar 10, 2015)

The best thing to do would be to emulate 2e specialty priests. Since spells in 5e don't really distinquish between divine and arcane, they just are Spells, and appear on certain lists, I would simply make spell lists for each deity or domain. Or just say they can swap them out for their domain spells they would get if you want less work.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Mar 10, 2015)

evilbob said:


> Does anyone know if these free updates will be added to the "Basic" rules?  Seems like they might as well, since they're all available freely - and that would just make it easier to get to them.




I don't think the Basic Rules is primarily defined by 'free'.  It is defined by 'basic' - 4 races, 4 classes - one subclass each.

Adding fringe races, especially ones that will be widely insta-banned (Aarakocra) goes against that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 10, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> If they only had displayed this level of awesome already in the PHB... Then you could have said something like:
> 
> I really love how 5e isn't afraid to put options out there that not everyone will use. Rather than trying to water-down the beastmaster to please everyone who doesn't like powerful and independent animal companions at an early level, they just let the ranger subclass be what they are and rely on DMs who don't like the thing to say "not in my game, buddy." That's awesome.




I don't think WotC sees the beastmaster animal companion as _weak_. The fact that it doesn't line up with player expectations is a different, though quite valid, concern. 



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> I am both totally unsurprised yet nevertheless disappointed that the first player supplement is mostly cool stuff for Wizards.




Come to think, I'm a little surprised elementalist monks didn't get a few more options...but it looks to me that druids and sorcerers get more love than wizards with the spell list additions. And the races are pretty class-agnostic. Aarakocra make good monks and rangers. Svirfneblin are good wizards but even more kick-ass rogues (or the blended arcane trickster). Genasi are delightful as any class, though they have certain preferences (Air Genasi are good archer-fighters, Earth Genasi are strong, mobile melee fighters and great barbarians, fire genasi will see some use as wizards but they'd make better eldritch knights!, water genasi are one of the few non-dwarf races that makes a kick-butt cleric). Goliaths are solid fighters and barbarians. 

But anyway, I guess that's to say that I see a few gaps that could've been filled, but I wouldn't characterize this as "mostly cool stuff for Wizards." 

....in fact an EK could get a lot of these new spells...hm....


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 10, 2015)

Goblinerd said:


> Considering they only handed this PDF out because they cancelled the Adventurer's Handbook





Nellisir said:


> They cancel the Adventurer's Handbook



As Mike Mearls said, how do you cancel something that was never announced?



TerraDave said:


> Its nice, but its does feel like they started something bigger, like the book they announced, and stopped.




They did not announce the book. You are mistaken (and no that is not me joking).


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> I find it unlikely this will generate more traffic than the Basic Rules. Did that crash the site at any point?




First day for a couple hours. 

I think they just wanted to throw a bone to DTRPG, and then moved it to their own servers after the complaints of the watermarking began.


----------



## jodyjohnson (Mar 10, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> They cancel the Adventurer's Handbook and release a 25-page pdf instead, with no notice*. So, no. If anything, the lack of information about the release makes me more nervous. I found out about it on Reddit, since it had already been pushed down out of view on the front page here.
> A version that doesn't devour my ink cartridges would be nice too....
> 
> Cute disclaimer.
> ...






			
				Elemental Evil Press Release said:
			
		

> Characters in the D&D tabletop roleplaying game can help prevent devastation to the lands and people of the Forgotten Realms in the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure by Wizards of the Coast and Sasquatch Game Studio. Princes of the Apocalypse is available on April 7, 2015 and includes an epic adventure for characters levels 1–15 as well as *new elemental spells* and the *element-touched genasi as a new playable race*. In addition, a *free download* will be available in *mid-March* that includes *more new races* plus the player content available in Princes of the Apocalypse, just in time for the start of the Elemental Evil season of the D&D Adventurers League.




http://dnd.wizards.com/elemental-evil  January 20, 2015 – Renton, WA


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 10, 2015)

Serrrg said:


> It is interesting, that the size of the PDF at the wizards page is bigger, than the one at DTRPG




Wow. Someone didn't optimize their pdf. Wizards is 22.3, DTRPG is 6.4. Same content.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 10, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> As Mike Mearls said, how do you cancel something that was never announced?
> 
> 
> 
> They did not announce the book. You are mistaken (and no that is not me joking).




Mike Mearls may not have, but someone did:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...E-APOCALYPSE-for-D-D-5E-in-2015!#.VP9PcYHXab5


----------



## The Grand User (Mar 10, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> Mike Mearls may not have, but someone did:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...E-APOCALYPSE-for-D-D-5E-in-2015!#.VP9PcYHXab5




Looks more like it was a leak rather than an announcement. So it could be they thought they'd need the Adventurer's Handbook but perhaps it turned out the amount of content wouldn't quite match up as they initially thought.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> "Here's a bunch of new *free *stuff for your games!"
> "There's not enough.  You suck."
> 
> 
> SMH....




I don't have to be grateful just because something is free. 

I would rather pay money for stuff I will use then get stuff I won't use for free.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> I don't have to be grateful just because something is free.
> 
> I would rather pay money for stuff I will use then get stuff I won't use for free.




Did I miss something?  WoTC isn't forcing this upon you, giving you something you won't use.  It's just there for those who want it.  Don't like it?  Fine, don't use it.  It's that simple.  But to complain about not getting enough of something that is freely given strikes me as very....selfish.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

And for those that read the title pages, remember:

"You can do a lot of things with fire.  But none of them are a good idea."


----------



## Tormyr (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> And for those that read the title pages, remember:
> 
> "You can do a lot of things with fire.  But none of them are a good idea."




_Immolation _is a good idea.


----------



## IchneumonWasp (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm excited to see this, but I am a bit disappointed as well. In general I love it that they are adding more races and I'm very happy to see the Goliath and Genasi return, although mechanically of all races only the Goliath really excite me. The Deep Gnomes seem a bit underpowered to me. I'm happy with the Aarakocra and the possibility of adding them to a Dark Sun campaign. 

I'm disappointed we only got spells and not more class options, like sub classes for clerics, wizards and sorcerers. Elemental domains, an elementalist subclass for wizard and a non-draconic elemental heritage for sorcerer all seemed like logical additions. Especially for sorcerers, I feel there is a need for more sub-classes that aren't dragon flavored or too dependent on random stuff like with Wild Magic. 

The spells themselves look good, I guess. I like Frostbite and Iceknife as spells and am considering playing an ice sorcerer.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Mar 10, 2015)

Klaus said:


> Thanks!




No problem!  It's a beautiful piece. Well done!


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Did I miss something?  WoTC isn't forcing this upon you, giving you something you won't use.  It's just there for those who want it.  Don't like it?  Fine, don't use it.  It's that simple.  But to complain about not getting enough of something that is freely given strikes me as very....selfish.




Then how about they put out more product and give me something that I will use?

I'm complaining about not getting enough product that I will pay for. 

If this is where most of their attention is spent and that's all they could come up with then we better see something that is awesome in the near future.


----------



## Chocolategravy (Mar 10, 2015)

Sacrosanct said:


> Did I miss something?  WoTC isn't forcing this upon you, giving you something you won't use.  It's just there for those who want it.  Don't like it?  Fine, don't use it.  It's that simple.  But to complain about not getting enough of something that is freely given strikes me as very....selfish.



    Some people would rather get something good they pay for than have the company spend it's time making garbage for free instead.  It seems that this is really just a way to get people to buy the elemental evil path, which is fine, but it also does seem like the sort of power creep we were getting with the less strictly edited Dragon material rather than the official splat books.


----------



## graves3141 (Mar 10, 2015)

Serrrg said:


> It is interesting, that the size of the PDF at the wizards page is bigger, than the one at DTRPG




The images in the document are a bit sharper and darker in the WotC version too, maybe more hi-res... I can't page through the WotC version quite as easily either, but I have a slow computer.


----------



## Tormyr (Mar 10, 2015)

Chocolategravy said:


> Some people would rather get something good they pay for than have the company spend it's time making garbage for free instead.  It seems that this is really just a way to get people to buy the elemental evil path, which is fine, but it also does seem like the sort of power creep we were getting with the less strictly edited Dragon material rather than the official splat books.




I get what you are saying, but I am not sure if this is necessarily the same kind of power creep that prior editions have seen with splat books.  The options that I have looked over so far seem to be on par with what is available in the PHB.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Morrus said:


> That particular episode rubbed me up the wrong way. Pendantry never attracts me to anything; and the whole "a D&D book is like a National Security secret" angle is starting to become obnoxious. Especially when ad copy exists, is being circulated, and they say nothing and then pretend to be surprised that anybody ever thought anything.




I don't get what Mearl's was trying to say to be honest.

If I am working on something with the intention of putting out there but I don't announce it and end up canceling the product then nothing changes for the fact that I was working on a product and it got cancelled. 

Saying "how do you cancel something that was never announced" makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 10, 2015)

Chocolategravy said:


> Some people would rather get something good they pay for than have the company spend it's time making garbage for free instead.  It seems that this is really just a way to get people to buy the elemental evil path, which is fine, but it also does seem like the sort of power creep we were getting with the less strictly edited Dragon material rather than the official splat books.




Ok, firstly, who says this FREE release is garbage?  I certainly don't think so.  And neither do most people it seems.  at the very least, you get a bunch of spells.  FOR FREE.  

Secondly, who says this is all they are going to release?  Maybe they WILL have a more formalized and expansive future product out there.

And thirdly, for a guy who admitted doesn't even play 5e, I don't think you're the best person to represent what 5e players actually want.  It seems all you do is hang out in 5e forums complaining about the game and the company.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 10, 2015)

evilbob said:


> Does anyone know if these free updates will be added to the "Basic" rules?  Seems like they might as well, since they're all available freely - and that would just make it easier to get to them.




I certainly hope not! The point of the basic game is to offer a simple starter game. ALL of this stuff is decidedly optional/add-on. It has no business being anywhere near the Basic Rules or insinuating this material is to be assumed to be "basic/in play options."



jodyjohnson said:


> I don't think the Basic Rules is primarily defined by 'free'.  It is defined by 'basic' - 4 races, 4 classes - one subclass each.
> 
> Adding fringe races, especially ones that will be widely insta-banned (Aarakocra) goes against that.




Right. Yeah. This. 

ninja'd.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2015)

Nellisir said:


> I find it unlikely this will generate more traffic than the Basic Rules. Did that crash the site at any point?




Good point. I just wish I could make sense of behaviors that seems to be erratic. I'm sure there are logical explainations. There has to be!


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Tormyr said:


> I get what you are saying, but I am not sure if this is necessarily the same kind of power creep that prior editions have seen with splat books.  The options that I have looked over so far seem to be on par with what is available in the PHB.




Too many spells can cause powercreep.


----------



## fuindordm (Mar 10, 2015)

Greg Benage said:


> "Shafted" is probably too strong, but it's irksome that my tempest cleric has no access to any or all of:
> 
> * Gust
> * Shape water
> ...




I plan to let players choose 2 spells/level to represent their domain. If you want to have a spell from a supplement, swap out one of the ones from the PH.
Same for druids.


----------



## Trickster Spirit (Mar 10, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Then how about they put out more product and give me something that I will use?
> 
> I'm complaining about not getting enough product that I will pay for.
> 
> If this is where most of their attention is spent and that's all they could come up with then we better see something that is awesome in the near future.




Sailor Moon, I have a question for you I would honestly like to know the answer to. You've made it abundantly clear that you're not satisfied the support 5E has received to date.

I'm convinced that moving forward, 5E will receive essentially the level of support we've just seen - two big adventure paths a year with accompanying player options (either free online as a PDF or as a companion hardcover to the adventure), plus a monthly Unearthed Arcana article (which perhaps will be playtested and compiled into a hardcover a year or two from now). Maybe a campaign setting book a year, focusing on a different setting each year. Maybe a Monster Manual II or Fiend Folio in a year or two.

What I'd like to ask you is, are you going to keep playing 5E if I'm right about that being the case?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting to, but perhaps it's time to give some serious thought to the matter as none of the things you're insisting are crucial to your enjoyment of the game appear to be on the horizon.


----------



## occam (Mar 10, 2015)

Klaus said:


> woot! I can finally share my Aarakocra, Genasi and Whirlwing spell illustrations!




Did you do the illustration for the _whirlwind_ spell, with the gnoll? I was wondering if that was you. I love it! The gnoll looks fantastic, and I appreciate the Egyptian trappings flying around; it really tells a story.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

I would say the reason we didn't see cleric spells is the fact that anytime new cleric spells come out, the cleric in question could automatically have access to it, unless it's god specific.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 10, 2015)

Anyone else find the deep gnome magic presented as a feat to be...interesting? I don't know if I like it or not. It was certainly unexpected to be put in that way...and, of course, has implications as to the "optional" expectations of Feats in general...or opens up the whole can of worms o individual tables "ok'ing this feat but not that one".

But, like I said, unexpected...not entirely unwelcome...but intriguing why they would chose to do innate racial magic for this race this way...


----------



## Umbrathys (Mar 10, 2015)

Love the content.  Love the art.  Also (in my humble uneducated opinion) logical to exclude new cleric spells (wouldn't this be a non-issue if they would simply implement a "spells known" number or a spell list by deity / focus??).
Absolutely love the spells, especially the return of many old faithful ones 
Is it just me, or is Melf's Minute Meteor coupled with a Fire Dragon Sorcerer really, really kick butt now?


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Anyone else find the deep gnome magic presented as a feat to be...interesting? I don't know if I like it or not. It was certainly unexpected to be put in that way...and, of course, has implications as to the "optional" expectations of Feats in general...or opens up the whole can of worms o individual tables "ok'ing this feat but not that one".
> 
> But, like I said, unexpected...not entirely unwelcome...but intriguing why they would chose to do innate racial magic for this race this way...




It's been done before in 3rd edition. 

Remember how drow used to get "levitate" back in the day? Well the made it where you could take a feat in 3rd edition and gain levitate along with a few other innate abilities.


----------



## Desalus (Mar 10, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Then how about they put out more product and give me something that I will use?
> 
> I'm complaining about not getting enough product that I will pay for.
> 
> If this is where most of their attention is spent and that's all they could come up with then we better see something that is awesome in the near future.




I'm curious...Can you please give an example of a product that would give you something of use and be worthy of your purchase. You obviously don't care about new races or new spells.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 10, 2015)

occam said:


> Did you do the illustration for the _whirlwind_ spell, with the gnoll? I was wondering if that was you. I love it! The gnoll looks fantastic, and I appreciate the Egyptian trappings flying around; it really tells a story.




Yep, that was one of mine! Thanks for the kind words!


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Desalus said:


> I'm curious...Can you please give an example of a product that would give you something of use and be worthy of your purchase. You obviously don't care about new races or new spells.




They have produced races that are niche to the product to be honest and we don't need anymore spells at the moment. Almost every class is a spellcaster in some way, how about bring out some nonspellcasting material? 

A Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide would be a great start, along with some short term modules, regional books for FR, An Adventurer's Guide that contains options for "all" classes and contains more feats, backgrounds, weapons, and armour. 

For a start.


----------



## Agamon (Mar 10, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> 2. Because it supports the hobby, directing traffic to another site that sells rpg materials.
> 
> I suspect #2 is of less importance to WOTC, but I'd be surprised if no one was pleased at the result.




Yup.  Rising tides raise all boats, even the big battleships.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Mar 10, 2015)

Chocolategravy said:


> Some people would rather get something good they pay for than have the company spend it's time making garbage for free instead.  It seems that this is really just a way to get people to buy the elemental evil path, which is fine, but it also does seem like the sort of power creep we were getting with the less strictly edited Dragon material rather than the official splat books.




At least you're keeping an open mind about it. 

I suspect you're in a minority to classify three new balanced races and a significant number of spells as "garbage". Apart from the low-level flying (which is explicitly called out in the text), I see no indications of power creep.* 

Speaking for myself, this is the material I want, and if anything it makes me less interested in the adventure path, since the material I am most interested in has been given to me already. For free. 


* What would be an indication of power creep? 


Sailor Moon said:


> I would say the reason we didn't see cleric spells is the fact that anytime new cleric spells come out, the cleric in question could automatically have access to it, unless it's god specific.




Cleric spells (without any other counterbalancing mechanism), as others have noted.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 10, 2015)

Guys, I'm no mod or anything, but could we keep the complaining about the release schedule (or lack thereof) to one of the dozen or so perfectly adequate threads that already exist, and keep this one for talking about the contents of the EEPC?


----------



## occam (Mar 10, 2015)

Speaking of power creep, I'm wondering if we're not seeing some in reverse. A few spells seem a little weak to me. The one that stands out is the highest-level new spell, _Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting_. An 8th-level AoE spell that does 10d8 (45 avg.) necrotic, and doesn't affect constructs or undead? Seems like it should do more.

Compare, for instance, to _sunburst_, an 8th-level spell AoE spell (same range with *much* larger area) that does 12d6 (42 avg.) radiant, undead and oozes have disadvantage on the save, *and* it blinds.


----------



## Desalus (Mar 10, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> They have produced races that are niche to the product to be honest and we don't need anymore spells at the moment. Almost every class is a spellcaster in some way, how about bring out some nonspellcasting material?
> 
> A Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide would be a great start, along with some short term modules, regional books for FR, An Adventurer's Guide that contains options for "all" classes and contains more feats, backgrounds, weapons, and armour.
> 
> For a start.




Yeah, I agree with you on the lack of material for non-spellcasters. I tend to shy away from using spellcasters so it's a bit disappointing to see nothing new for those classes. As for the races, it seems that the PHB covered all of the basic races so I would expect any additional ones to be a bit more obscure.

I also agree that it would be really nice to get at least a campaign guide for the Forgotten Realms. Perhaps this PotA campaign book will contain a lot more fluff than the 180 page Tyranny of Dragons campaign did, so it could possibly fulfill that need. As far as more adventures, if you have access to the Encounters Adventures those are pretty good one shots. I agree with you though that the publicly released adventures are sorely lacking (hopefully they end up releasing Encounters for free at some point). My last point is that if they will not be releasing any new classes, class options, feats, or  background in the campaign books, they must be planning to release this  content in separate products.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 10, 2015)

occam said:


> Speaking of power creep, I'm wondering if we're not seeing some in reverse. A few spells seem a little weak to me. The one that stands out is the highest-level new spell, _Abi-Dalzim's horrid wilting_. An 8th-level AoE spell that does 10d8 (45 avg.) necrotic, and doesn't affect constructs or undead? Seems like it should do more.
> 
> Compare, for instance, to _sunburst_, an 8th-level spell AoE spell (same range with *much* larger area) that does 12d6 (42 avg.) radiant, undead and oozes have disadvantage on the save, *and* it blinds.




Horrid Wilting may be a good spell for a necromancer who does not want to hurt undead or constructs...


----------



## Kobold Stew (Mar 10, 2015)

Desalus said:


> Yeah, I agree with you on the lack of material for non-spellcasters. I tend to shy away from using spellcasters so it's a bit disappointing to see nothing new for those classes.




...except for three new viable PC races, which have their biggest ability bonuses in Dexterity, Constitution, and Strength (all non-casting stats).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 10, 2015)

I weep with joy at the return of _transmute rock/mud_, but there seems to be some errata required. Both uses of the spell refer to an effect lasting "for the spell's duration." But the spell's duration is given as instantaneous.


----------



## Greg Benage (Mar 10, 2015)

Kobold Stew said:


> * What would be an indication of power creep?
> 
> 
> Cleric spells (without any other counterbalancing mechanism), as others have noted.




What am I missing? New spells for clerics would be power creep, but no problem for the druid's thirty-two new spells?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 10, 2015)

Wow, totally missed this with all the other news today.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 10, 2015)

Anyone else find the font a bit brutal on the eyes?


----------



## Jester David (Mar 10, 2015)

Well, I guess that explains why we didn't see this as a separate book. A book with 50-pages of fluff and that would have caused riots. 

I guess I can continue work on my elemental sorcerer and primordial warlock fan design now.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 10, 2015)

TerraDave said:


> Mike Mearls may not have, but someone did:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...E-APOCALYPSE-for-D-D-5E-in-2015!#.VP9PcYHXab5




And later it was found out that was not an official announcement by anyone, it was an unauthorized leak of potential WOTC plans. Note the source is Kettie, not anyone at WOTC.


----------



## maceochaid (Mar 10, 2015)

It would also be nice to have some sort of note about which elemental spells Elemental Monks could learn. Seems appropriate. I think an update of the tempest domain is totally in order, 
Shatter -> Warding Wind
sleet storm -> tidal wave
ice storm -> storm sphere
insect plague-> control winds

then make an ice/cold/polar domain separate from this.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 10, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> And later it was found out that was not an official announcement by anyone, it was an unauthorized leak of potential WOTC plans. Note the source is Kettie, not anyone at WOTC.




Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an unauthorized leak or is it your opinion? Cause it could have been a planned teaser from WotC. Kettie did it again with the covers of both books January the 2nd. http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...k-and-Princes-of-the-Apocalypse!#.VP97T_mG-T8

I would be surprised that WotC didn't warn them the first time Kettie leaked info without WotC's consent, considering how secretive they are about their release schedule. Why would WotC give them the covers in the first place if they new Kettie was not rust worthy?


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think WotC sees the beastmaster animal companion as _weak_. The fact that it doesn't line up with player expectations is a different, though quite valid, concern.




I don't think the beastmaster is weak either. It's just very peculiar from a verisimilitude perspective because of how the mount's action economy works--but there's nothing weak about it. As in, you could have a party composed entirely of beastmasters and they could handle encounters normally. They're not STRONG but they're not weak.


----------



## MoonSong (Mar 11, 2015)

A quick scan through the document. 

Am I the only one bothered by sorcerers receiving name spells?


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Mar 11, 2015)

graves3141 said:


> The images in the document are a bit sharper and darker in the WotC version too, maybe more hi-res... I can't page through the WotC version quite as easily either, but I have a slow computer.




Perhaps DTRPG's watermarking process compresses the PDF layers at the same time it ads the watermark.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an unauthorized leak or is it your opinion?




It's not my opinion, there was a thread here about it at the time, and more than one WOTC person commented on it.  Here is what I found so far:

It started when I asked Mike Mearls why it was cancelled. He responded...
   [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls : We can't cancel a book we never announced! 
   [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] : Interesting. You guys made ad copy and designed a cover for it, though? 
   [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls : we do a lot of stuff that may or may not end up as a released product. 
   [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls : we've played things close to the vest is that it's a huge, open question on what support for the RPG should look like 
   [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls : for instance, we now know that the high volume release schedule for 3e and 4e turned out to be bad for D&D
  [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls: lots of experiments ahead...

That looks pretty clear to me that this was not authorized and was never intended to be anything (at that time) other than "stuff that may or may not end up as a released product".


----------



## Eric V (Mar 11, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Anyone else find the deep gnome magic presented as a feat to be...interesting? I don't know if I like it or not. It was certainly unexpected to be put in that way...and, of course, has implications as to the "optional" expectations of Feats in general...or opens up the whole can of worms o individual tables "ok'ing this feat but not that one".
> 
> But, like I said, unexpected...not entirely unwelcome...but intriguing why they would chose to do innate racial magic for this race this way...




Yeah, I know what you mean...it has serious potential.  Could be used for other classic abilities as well: Imagine a feat with a high level pre-req (12?) that allowed the svirfneblin to summon an earth elemental.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> It's not my opinion, there was a thread here about it at the time, and more than one WOTC person commented on it.  Here is what I found so far:
> 
> It started when I asked Mike Mearls why it was cancelled. He responded...
> [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls : We can't cancel a book we never announced!
> ...




So, like I thought, no official communications from WotC about Kettie leaking info they shouldn't have. My theory that it was a planned leaked, both times Ketties leaked info on the books, is still valid. 

Thank you for your cooperation, citizen.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 11, 2015)

Eric V said:


> Yeah, I know what you mean...it has serious potential.  Could be used for other classic abilities as well: Imagine a feat with a high level pre-req (12?) that allowed the svirfneblin to summon an earth elemental.




Right. Yes. See, that strikes me as a cool idea now. This morning I would have thought, "Innate racial ability, why would that be a feat?!"

But the traditional elemental summoning of the svirfs, which would otherwise seem amazingly OP for lower level PCs to have access, makes sense now.

It's growing on me...and could see it in other -traditionally more magical or special- races one might not normally use for PCs, as well.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 11, 2015)

Some neat stuff in there, but the 2 things I was most looking forward to (elemental sorcerers and Genie-pact warlocks or sha'irs) are absent; meaning my work on converting Al-Qadim just became that much more.  I'd have liked some designer expertise on balancing the sha'ir, in particular. :/


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an unauthorized leak or is it your opinion?




Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an authorized leak, or is it your opinion?

Also, what definition of the word "leak" are you using that allows it to be authorized? Pretty much by definition, a "leak" is something that is not intentional (or at least claimed to be not intentional), and at the very least, is a *far frickin' cry* from any sort of release announcement. 



> Why would WotC give them the covers in the first place if they new Kettie was not rust worthy?




This is conspiracy theory thinkin' right here. And is at any rate irrelevant - anyone basing their expectations of the future on anything called a "leak" is building a house of straw on sand. It's not an expectation that is going to last.


----------



## Eric V (Mar 11, 2015)

cbwjm said:


> If you've started a conversion of the Sha'ir then I'd be interested in seeing it. I've worked on a conversion myself and seen some excellent conversions, possibly yours if you've already posted it here in the homebrew section.




I had a skeletal outline then stopped because I thought it would be in the Adventurer's Handbook. :/

Instead, I worked on charting out all the chapters from "A Dozen and ONe Adventures," "Ruined Kingdoms," "Cities of Bone," and "Assassin Mountain."


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an authorized leak, or is it your opinion?



As I said, it is my theory, or opinion to be clear. Hence me using the word "could be". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.



> Also, what definition of the word "leak" are you using that allows it to be authorized? Pretty much by definition, a "leak" is something that is not intentional (or at least claimed to be not intentional), and at the very least, is a *far frickin' cry* from any sort of release announcement.



Um, an information leak is intentional. From merriam-webster: to give (secret information) to someone so that it becomes known to the public. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leak

At least that is how I used it and how people use it colloquially. 



> This is conspiracy theory thinkin' right here.



Nah, it is a marketing strategy. It is done to create hype. There are a lot of leaks around movies, if an example is needed. Some real, some fake. Gets people talking. Apple did it with its Apple Watch. Let's not be naive here. 



> And is at any rate irrelevant - anyone basing their expectations of the future on anything called a "leak" is building a house of straw on sand.



Depends. In politics you have a lot of leaks. It is the basis of journalism to report what anonymous sources leaked to them. We base expectations of that. Nothing wrong with it or are you saying there it something wrong with people having expectations? 

What where the leaks for the books anyway? The cover of the books, the studio (Sasquatch Games) that was making the books, the content of the books (one is an adventure and the other a splatbook). Seems like relevent stuff. And it was pretty much accurate. The only problem is that between January the 3rd and the 19th, WotC decided that the splatbook would be released as a PDF. 



> It's not an expectation that is going to last.



Of course. At some point the product is delivered and expectations are confronted to reality. Sometimes for positive results (Avengers), sometimes not so much (Adventurer's Hanbook). That is life. If people would live without expectations, I believe suicide rates would be much higher. Yes, that is an opinion.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 11, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> I would say the reason we didn't see cleric spells is the fact that anytime new cleric spells come out, the cleric in question could automatically have access to it, unless it's god specific.




Yeah, I house ruled that years ago.

Player's Handbook spells are all fair game...but anything in a supplement that comes out later is not assumed to be on the cleric's list, and the lore must be sought out in game and in character.


----------



## occam (Mar 11, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Am I the only one bothered by sorcerers receiving name spells?




No, you're not the only one. "Bothered" might be too strong; "slightly irked", maybe.


----------



## occam (Mar 11, 2015)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Horrid Wilting may be a good spell for a necromancer who does not want to hurt undead or constructs...




Ah, good point. I hadn't thought of the necromancer, and construct allies; niche usage, but it gives the spell more of a purpose.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Mar 11, 2015)

SkidAce said:


> Yeah, I house ruled that years ago.
> 
> Player's Handbook spells are all fair game...but anything in a supplement that comes out later is not assumed to be on the cleric's list, and the lore must be sought out in game and in character.



Excellent idea


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Mar 11, 2015)

I like it.

One thing I'm seeing that no one else has brought up is that the Air and Earth Genasi seem weak relative to the other Genasi (or other races in general). Just compare Air to Water, for example--or compare Air to Aarakocra.

I'm thinking that Air and Earth's spell is supposed to refresh on a _short_ rest, rather than a long rest.

Is anyone else thinking similarly about those subraces?

And I like the gnoll in the whirlwind art. For some reason it stands out as exceptional.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> the critters are recognizably aarakocra, despite all the additional story details about elemental earth and the wind dukes of aaqa that I'm a little "meh" on.



Aarakocra have been connected to the Plane of Air at least since a late-80s Dragon article (number 124, August 1987). This seems like a reasonable enough development from that.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an unauthorized leak or is it your opinion? [/url]






Kamikaze Midget said:


> Do you have an official comment from WotC saying it was an authorized leak, or is it your opinion?



I do.



			
				Mearls on Twitter said:
			
		

> Today I learned my daughter will tolerate two llamas, but a third is unbearable.




Obviously a secret, encoded message. 

Link: https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/571854082693996544


----------



## The Mirrorball Man (Mar 11, 2015)

This kind of material seems like a fair replacement for Dragon Magazine, though perhaps not for the kind of sourcebooks WotC used to publish.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 11, 2015)

Why are a few people hung up on Mearls statement? 

It makes absolutely no sense what so ever. 

He claims that you can't cancel something that was never announced. How long have you been in the biz Mike? 

Things get cancelled all the time without them ever being "announced". He was trying awful hard to hide something but in a way that tried to make the audience seem a bit thick. Kind of like the "do you take us for idiots with that excuse" kind of moment.


----------



## PinkRose (Mar 11, 2015)

Anyone from WotC reading this thread?
Would be nice to get a printer-friendly version of this supplement like the ones from HotDQ and RoT.


----------



## Vicar In A Tutu (Mar 11, 2015)

PinkRose said:


> Anyone from WotC reading this thread?
> Would be nice to get a printer-friendly version of this supplement like the ones from HotDQ and RoT.



WoTC-people appearently almost never read ENWorld anymore. And if they do, they tend not to comment, answer questions or participate in discussions.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 11, 2015)

This is a great free web enhancement, I really hope they will continue to do them in the future. 30 pages of player characters stuff every 3-4 months would be enough for me.

I *definitely *would also like to see subclasses in these web enhancements, because IMO there are too few in the PHB, particularly _cleric domains_ and _rogue schemes_ are seriously lacking (but also a non-draconic, non-wildmage sorcerer is needed). But I guess subclasses are significantly more complex to design and especially need more playtesting, compared to races.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Aarakocra have been connected to the Plane of Air at least since a late-80s Dragon article (number 124, August 1987). This seems like a reasonable enough development from that.




It's a reasonable development. It doesn't line up with what _I personally_ find interesting about the aarakocra (which is their capacity to be antagonists that are not necessarily evil but still in conflict with other good creatures), but it's not totally out of left field. I'm not really sold on it being an interesting development for my tables. WotC presumably thinks this links them more closely with some iconic adventures, and fair enough, but those adventures were never iconic to my personal D&D experience, so linking them more closely is pretty irrelevant to how I'd usually use 'em.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Um, an information leak is intentional. From merriam-webster: to give (secret information) to someone so that it becomes known to the public. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leak
> 
> At least that is how I used it and how people use it colloquially.




Intentional by the leaker, of course, but not intentional _by the people who have the secret_ (in this case, WotC). Those people presumably are not happy about secrets being revealed.



> Nah, it is a marketing strategy. It is done to create hype. There are a lot of leaks around movies, if an example is needed. Some real, some fake. Gets people talking. Apple did it with its Apple Watch. Let's not be naive here.




It's not naive to imagine that this is exactly what WotC claims it is, and just because leaks have been used for marketing in the past does not mean that _this_ leak was used that way. All you have is a hypothesis without evidence that it is otherwise. 



> Depends. In politics you have a lot of leaks. It is the basis of journalism to report what anonymous sources leaked to them. We base expectations of that. Nothing wrong with it or are you saying there it something wrong with people having expectations?




There's something wrong with people presuming that a leak represents reliable marketing information. Because those things are not the same thing.


> Of course. At some point the product is delivered and expectations are confronted to reality. Sometimes for positive results (Avengers), sometimes not so much (Adventurer's Hanbook). That is life. If people would live without expectations, I believe suicide rates would be much higher. Yes, that is an opinion.




The idea that this is a "negative" result is counter-intuitive, since basing your expectations on a leak is basing them on the thinnest of bits of hints. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you treat leaks as always reliable.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 11, 2015)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> This kind of material seems like a fair replacement for Dragon Magazine, though perhaps not for the kind of sourcebooks WotC used to publish.




Not until they bring back Dragonmirth damnnit!


----------



## Reynard (Mar 11, 2015)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> This kind of material seems like a fair replacement for Dragon Magazine, though perhaps not for the kind of sourcebooks WotC used to publish.




Dragon provided a lot more material that was a lot more diverse in content. I understand that the economics of a $6 magazine do not work in today's market but -- like many folks do with the PF AP -- I would subscribe to Dragon for $15/month, easy, if it was the same perfect bound, high production quality.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 11, 2015)

It's good to see the Svirfneblin back, I remember when they were overpowered cheese in 2e, and probably would have banned them before the Aarakocra if they were anything like they were before.  This version of the Svirfneblin is at least playable in most campaigns, and no longer have something like 16 abilities to remember.

The Air and Earth Genasi do seem to be slightly less appealing than the Fire and Water Genasi.  I would have given Air and Earth those new cantrips Gust and Mold Earth in the spell section of the book.  Though indefinitely holding your breath as an Air Genasi could make you ignore the effects of some spells.

I'm glad that Abi Dalzim's Horrid Wilting (which I feel should be made available to Warlock's Mystic Arcanum), Ice Knife and Vitriolic Sphere are back, they were some of favourite spells.

Thunderclap seems like a good cantrip to use for Valour Bards and Eldritch Knights, for their cast a spell and make an attack abilities.


----------



## evilbob (Mar 11, 2015)

me said:
			
		

> Does anyone know if these free updates will be added to the "Basic" rules? Seems like they might as well, since they're all available freely - and that would just make it easier to get to them.





steeldragons said:


> I certainly hope not! The point of the basic game is to offer a simple starter game. ALL of this stuff is decidedly optional/add-on.





jodyjohnson said:


> I don't think the Basic Rules is primarily defined by 'free'.  It is defined by 'basic' - 4 races, 4 classes - one subclass each.
> 
> Adding fringe races, especially ones that will be widely insta-banned (Aarakocra) goes against that.



Good points, I agree.

In that light, I hope they continue to put together all the optional rules into one place to make them easy to access.  And "they're all somewhere on the WotC website" does not qualify for this.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Why are a few people hung up on Mearls statement?
> 
> It makes absolutely no sense what so ever.
> 
> ...




Your flippant comments notwithstanding, how DO you cancel something not announced?  No, not with snark, think it through.  If it's not announced, then how do you know it was a planned thing to begin with.  If it is not a planned thing yet, it literally cannot be cancelled.  And I don't mean literally in the messed up "figuratively" sense that such a word has come to mean, I mean literally in the more common sense - as in it really and truly cannot be cancelled if it was never the plan to begin with.

So show me evidence it was the actual plan.  Mike says they do lots of speculative stuff which isn't necessarily planned for release, it's just R&D experimentation in-house. If I say to my art guy "mock up a cover for this, I want to see what it would look like in case we decide to do something like that" and then I don't release the book with that mocked-up cover, the book with that cover was not cancelled - it never was a planned release to begin with.  It was just an experiment - a part of the whole development process.

If you're going to accuse Mike of lying, or being ignorant of his own business (and you seem to be saying one or both of those things), then the burden is on you to prove it was actually a planned thing to begin with.  So far, you have not proven that.  Which probably means you shouldn't be accusing him of lying or being ignorant until you can provide that evidence.  To me, it looks like you're ignorant (as in lacking information) but just bullying ahead and drawing harsh conclusions anyway despite that ignorance.  Hardly a position of strength or persuasion.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Your flippant comments notwithstanding, how DO you cancel something not announced? .



Obviously you can't.

But if you have a mock-up cover and it is on ENWorld for weeks, and you let it sit there, then acting like not formally announcing it makes a big difference to the customers is not very bright.

I'm all for canceling products if they are not coming together.  And while people will bitch no matter what, the overall community is very forgiving *IF* you have a track record to support it.  

So just say, "Hey, we obviously we thinking about it. But it didn't work out like we wanted.  We want to deliver the best value we can to you, and so we are changing the plan."  The "can't cancel" quip seemed like he was pulling out a loophole on the clients.  Which is not a good plan.

Even with that, it isn't like it was PR move.  I'm sure it was juts an off-the-cuff from Mearls.  No big deal.  But don't double down on it.
Don't treat your paying customers like you think you can pull fast ones on them.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 11, 2015)

Obviously if your customers expect X then you need to act as if you announced X.

Anything else makes you come across as a .


----------



## Gecko85 (Mar 11, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Obviously if your customers expect X then you need to act as if you announced X.
> 
> Anything else makes you come across as a .




If that were true, Apple would be in big trouble. You could write encyclopedic volumes on the number of "leaked" prototypes for Apple products that never existed. And, every time, some overzealous tech writer or blogger took them as fact, and every time the message boards and comment threads were filled with disappointed/angry/confused people when an Apple press event happened and their magical vaporware product that never actually existed wasn't announced "like it was supposed to!" Apple's response to each and every one of these rumors and supposed leaks (some coming from manufacturing facilities in China purporting to be a new product) has been the same: nothing. No response at all. It's the correct response because it's a no-win situation for them.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I don't think WotC sees the beastmaster animal companion as _weak_. The fact that it doesn't line up with player expectations is a different, though quite valid, concern.



I never said it was weak. 

Though in the end it doesn't matter - whether a feature is weak or not fun boils down to the same single concern in the end: it isn't used. 

I wrote my reply in that view.


----------



## delericho (Mar 11, 2015)

The Mirrorball Man said:


> This kind of material seems like a fair replacement for Dragon Magazine...




In combination with their other web articles, sure. Provided they do it monthly.

Edit: And no, I don't expect them to "do it monthly", nor indeed do I think it would be reasonable to expect them to do such a thing. It is, after all, free.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> I never said it was weak.



....


			
				CapnZapp said:
			
		

> If they only had displayed this level of awesome already in the PHB... Then you could have said something like:
> 
> I really love how 5e isn't afraid to put options out there that not everyone will use. Rather than trying to water-down the beastmaster to please everyone who doesn't like powerful and independent animal companions at an early level, they just let the ranger subclass be what they are and rely on DMs who don't like the thing to say "not in my game, buddy." That's awesome.




Yeah, you didn't use that particular word, but you did say it was "watered-down," and if we were talking about alcohol and not ranger companions, that is synonymous with "made it weaker," and you also inferred that if it was more "powerful" it would be improved, so you can see how one might reasonably infer that. 



> Though in the end it doesn't matter - whether a feature is weak or not fun boils down to the same single concern in the end: it isn't used.
> 
> I wrote my reply in that view.




Sure, but I don't think making the companion more "powerful" or less "watered-down" is necessarily the right course of action here. Independence I can see as a big part of it. 

At any rate, it's easier including options that might prove divisive in a book like the DMG or a free product put out online than it is including them in the PHB, so ultimately these apples and these oranges are pretty different...


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> ....
> 
> 
> Yeah, you didn't use that particular word, but you did say it was "watered-down," and if we were talking about alcohol and not ranger companions, that is synonymous with "made it weaker," and you also inferred that if it was more "powerful" it would be improved, so you can see how one might reasonably infer that.
> ...



Feel free to not interpret my original post so literally. 

My point was that in the same way they allowed the aaracocra with the same kind of disclaimer (or thereabouts) they used for drow and wild mages, they could have and should have used for a beast master ranger that didn't suck, was fun.

Please focus on *this as the point*, and not the specifics of whether such an animal companion would be better, improved, stronger, more independent or whatever. Thank you


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Feel free to not interpret my original post so literally.
> 
> My point was that in the same way they allowed the aaracocra with the same kind of disclaimer (or thereabouts) they used for drow and wild mages, they could have and should have used for a beast master ranger that didn't suck, was fun.
> 
> Please focus on *this as the point*, and not the specifics of whether such an animal companion would be better, improved, stronger, more independent or whatever. Thank you




Sure, that's where the apples/oranges thing comes in - you got different standards of "this will not be used by folks" to hit for a PHB vs. a free web enhancement for an adventure.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Obviously you can't.
> 
> But if you have a mock-up cover and it is on ENWorld for weeks, and you let it sit there, then acting like not formally announcing it makes a big difference to the customers is not very bright.




It was long ago established that nobody from WOTC is really at EnWorld anymore.  They used to be, but they're not anymore.  So, I suspect it was never on their radar.  I think it's unwise to judge someone, to this level, for something they, 1) did not know was out there, and 2) did not authorize to be released.  



> So just say, "Hey, we obviously we thinking about it. But it didn't work out like we wanted.  We want to deliver the best value we can to you, and so we are changing the plan."  The "can't cancel" quip seemed like he was pulling out a loophole on the clients.  Which is not a good plan.




It seemed to me like he was saying, "I didn't plan that product, so I didn't change plans.  I didn't tell the clients we were doing that, so why are the clients telling me I did that?"  And that's what happened it seems - imagine the first time you become aware of something from a client, is when they're accusing you of cancelling one of their projects you supposedly announced to them when you never announced any such thing.  And imagine on top of that you find out the reason the client even thinks it was announced is because some anonymous person leaked some R&D experimental mock-ups you had someone do, and you don't even know how or why that leak happened.  

And now you have 140 characters per Tweet to respond to that.

Yeah, I can definitely imagine one reasonable response would be, 

"Someone sent you what looks like a new piece of planned product support? No, that's not right, we didn't announce that.  You're upset we're saying this cancelled product support? We can't cancel product support we never planned to do or announced to you.  You see, what happened here is we do a lot of stuff that may or may not end up as released product support, and this is was one of those.  We've played things close to the vest on product support for a reason.   It remains a huge, open question on what support should look like.  Because our past experience over the last 15 years demonstrates doing too much support of a certain type can be bad for our clients.  So we're doing a lot of internal experiments, and there are more to come, and this was one of those experiments.  It was not intended to be released like that to our clients, and we're not sure how you got that."

Which is a paraphrase of what Mike Meals said, in a string of 140 character Tweets in reaction to some Tweets he got.



> Even with that, it isn't like it was PR move.  I'm sure it was juts an off-the-cuff from Mearls.  No big deal.  But don't double down on it.
> Don't treat your paying customers like you think you can pull fast ones on them.




What fast one?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Intentional by the leaker, of course, but not intentional _by the people who have the secret_ (in this case, WotC). Those people presumably are not happy about secrets being revealed.



Except when they do it volontarely, like film studio excutives, corporations like Apple or politicians who want some info to be leaked.



> It's not naive to imagine that this is exactly what WotC claims it is [...]



When did WotC claimed that Kettie leaked the info without WotC's permission? Do you have that statement? That was my question to Mistwell and I never got the info from him.

I consider myself informed on D& matters, but I do not have that info. Please share it if you have it. All I have is speculations, like Mistwell. When I quoted him asking if it was his opinion, it was because he was talking like it was a fact and I was curious how he was sure it was a fact. 



> There's something wrong with people presuming that a leak represents reliable marketing information.



That is your moral judgement. Other people see it differently. You could explain to them why they are wrong for doing so. I'm not your target audience. Sorry.



> The idea that this is a "negative" result is counter-intuitive, since basing your expectations on a leak is basing them on the thinnest of bits of hints. You're setting yourself up for disappointment if you treat leaks as always reliable.



Heh. Who said I did?


----------



## BryonD (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> It was long ago established that nobody from WOTC is really at EnWorld anymore.  They used to be, but they're not anymore.  So, I suspect it was never on their radar.  I think it's unwise to judge someone, to this level, for something they, 1) did not know was out there, and 2) did not authorize to be released.



Being completely oblivious that your own internal mock-up cover is on a major website is no excuse.

Not frequenting is one thing.  Being oblivious is still very poor PR.



> It seemed to me like he was saying, "I didn't plan that product, so I didn't change plans.  I didn't tell the clients we were doing that, so why are the clients telling me I did that?"  And that's what happened it seems - imagine the first time you become aware of something from a client, is when they're accusing you of cancelling one of their projects you supposedly announced to them when you never announced any such thing.  And imagine on top of that you find out the reason the client even thinks it was announced is because some anonymous person leaked some R&D experimental mock-ups you had someone do, and you don't even know how or why that leak happened.
> 
> And now you have 140 characters per Tweet to respond to that.
> 
> ...



Understood.  It is understandable and forgivable.  It was still a bad move.  Move on, don't double down.



> What fast one?



How did ENWorld get their internal cover in the first place?  (It *is* the cover that ended up on the free version).
They need to own their product and the communications around it.
If their internal cover is out and then they say "it wasn't announced"  then that is a "fast one".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Except when they do it volontarely, like film studio excutives, corporations like Apple or politicians who want some info to be leaked.




This happens. There's no particular reason to believe that it happened here. 



> When did WotC claimed that Kettie leaked the info without WotC's permission? Do you have that statement? That was my question to Mistwell and I never got the info from him.




They don't have to claim that - it's a leak. By the definition of "leak," the leaker doesn't have WotC's permission. They never claimed otherwise. That WotC gave permission in secret for this is pure speculation without any specific evidence. Just because sometimes leaks are intentional doesn't follow that this time this leak was. 



> That is your moral judgement. Other people see it differently. You could explain to them why they are wrong for doing so. I'm not your target audience. Sorry.




It's not a moral judgement, just a factual one - if someone sees a leak as reliable marketing communication, they are factually wrong, and if they expect to see a product based entirely on a leak, they are quite likely to be wrong in their expectation.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 11, 2015)

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's good to see the Svirfneblin back, I remember when they were overpowered cheese in 2e,



HEY!  That's Asilud Sunnilda Gelud-Diedelindadottur you're talking about!  Best cleric/illusionist ever! 
...And yeah, totally overpowered. She was the primary arcane caster in the party (_wand of fireballs_), primary thief-type (_knock_ & _wraithform_), secondary divine caster (we had a sun-god priest), and decent in combat. 

HIGH-CLASS overpowered cheese.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

BryonD said:


> Being completely oblivious that your own internal mock-up cover is on a major website is no excuse.
> 
> Not frequenting is one thing.  Being oblivious is still very poor PR.




And I think that's holding WOTC to an unfair standard.  Much large companies than them are unaware of leaks.  Huge Governments, including the U.S., have been unaware something's been leaked for months until a reporter tells them.  I don't know where this high level standard for PR and knowledge-gathering for potential leaks for a company like WOTC is coming from, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable standard to me.  




> Understood.  It is understandable and forgivable.  It was still a bad move.  Move on, don't double down.




How did they double down on it? That was their first reaction.



> How did ENWorld get their internal cover in the first place?  (It *is* the cover that ended up on the free version).
> They need to own their product and the communications around it.
> If their internal cover is out and then they say "it wasn't announced"  then that is a "fast one".




How is that a fast one? I don't know of any definition of that phrase that seems to match the way you're using it.  Fast one implies a nefarious intent, that they're trying to trick someone by misrepresenting something.  I am just not getting your tone on this - it seems over the top.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 11, 2015)

I like free stuff.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This happens. There's no particular reason to believe that it happened here.



Like there is no paticular reason to believe Kettie leaked it or that is was all an accident. 

Well, actually, since it happened twice, an accident or doing it without WotC's consent seems less likely. WotC's guards its secret, don't you agree? And they aren't afraid to warn people with C&D letters. Why wouldn't they have warn Kettie to stop the leaks in August? Why give them the covers of the books in January knowing they can't be trusted? Something doesn't add-up.



> They don't have to claim that - it's a leak. By the definition of "leak," the leaker doesn't have WotC's permission.



Actually, as I showed, someone can make a leak volontarely. To repeat myself film executives, politicians, corporations do it all the time. Merriam-webster's definition supports that. 

WotC could have done it as a marketing strategy. That you disagree with this sort of strategy doesn't mean that WotC didn't do it. What would make it untrue is WotC saying Kettie leaked it or Kettie saying "we leaked it without WotC's consent." None of these statements have been made so far. I do not think they will be made either. So we are left with speculations.



> That WotC gave permission in secret for this is pure speculation without any specific evidence.



Just like saying Kettie did it without WotC's consent. That is my point. That both are speculation. That is the crux of my argument. I'm not sure why this is not clear. 



> It's not a moral judgement, just a factual one



No. It is your opinion. Nothing wrong with opinions, except claiming they are facts.



> if someone sees a leak as reliable marketing communication, they are factually wrong, and if they expect to see a product based entirely on a leak, they are quite likely to be wrong in their expectation.



The amount of correct leaks indicate your opinion is not factual. The problem with your opinion is that you start with the premise that leaks cannot be factual.


----------



## kettite (Mar 11, 2015)

For what must be the third time on this site, there was no "leak".  This is where all the information came from:
http://edelweiss.abovethetreeline.com/CatalogOverview.aspx?catalogID=407200


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> how DO you cancel something not announced?




The error you are making is to think that you need to announce something to cancel it. 

Merriam-Webster defines cancel this way:  _to stop doing or planning to do (something) : to decide that something (such as a game, performance, etc.) will not happen_. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel

Mike Mearls can go up to the guys at Sasquatch Games and say: "Sorry guys. You have been working very hard on the Adventurer's Handbook, but its release is cancelled. We will not print it. You can stop working on it." And this is how you cancel something that is not announced.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

kettite said:


> For what must be the third time on this site, there was no "leak".  This is where all the information came from:
> http://edelweiss.abovethetreeline.com/CatalogOverview.aspx?catalogID=407200




Heh. I thought Kettite was the name website that sold the books. Sorry dude. Every time I used the word Kettite, I ment the online distributor. I hope that clarifies things.


----------



## Lazorne (Mar 11, 2015)

PinkRose said:


> Anyone from WotC reading this thread?
> Would be nice to get a printer-friendly version of this supplement like the ones from HotDQ and RoT.




I messaged Mearls on twitter yesterday and he said he will look into it


----------



## BryonD (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> And I think that's holding WOTC to an unfair standard.  Much large companies than them are unaware of leaks.  Huge Governments, including the U.S., have been unaware something's been leaked for months until a reporter tells them.  I don't know where this high level standard for PR and knowledge-gathering for potential leaks for a company like WOTC is coming from, but it doesn't seem like a reasonable standard to me.



First, if someone thinks interacting with the public is fair, then they should not be interacting with the public.

Second, I don't think anyone is giving any of these other organizations as pass either.   When they are oblivious, they hear about it.

Third, WotC was interacting about the title, so I don't think that really stands up.



> How did they double down on it? That was their first reaction.



I don;t know that they are.  But you are when you keep embracing it as ok. 

Again, it is a fair and understandable mistake.  Agree to that and move on.  But if you want to act like it wasn't a mistake, that is doubling down.



> How is that a fast one? I don't know of any definition of that phrase that seems to match the way you're using it.  Fast one implies a nefarious intent, that they're trying to trick someone by misrepresenting something.  I am just not getting your tone on this - it seems over the top.



They let the cover be out thus implicitly "announcing it"  then they tried to trick the fans by misrepresenting something that was publicly available as something that was not publicly available.
I'm using YOUR words here, and as I've said, it isn't anywhere near as big a deal as this last statement implies.  But that comes from forcing a harsh definition on "fast one".

My tone is "it is what it is, no big deal, but don't try to pretend it isn't'".   From my perspective you seem to be suggesting that they did nothing wrong (wrong meaning "PR goof") and any disagreement is a claim they are "nefarious" borderline criminals.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The error you are making is to think that you need to announce something to cancel it.
> 
> Merriam-Webster defines cancel this way:  _to stop doing *or planning to do (something)* : to decide that something (such as a game, performance, etc.) will not happen_. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel
> 
> Mike Mearls can go up to the guys at Sasquatch Games and say: "Sorry guys. You have been working very hard on the Adventurer's Handbook, but its release is cancelled. We will not print it. You can stop working on it." And this is how you cancel something that is not announced.




The answer to your post is contained within the parts of my post that you cut.  Here you go again.



Mistwell said:


> Your flippant comments notwithstanding, how DO you cancel something not announced?  No, not with snark, think it through.  If it's not announced, then how do you know it was a planned thing to begin with.  *If it is not a planned thing yet*, it literally cannot be cancelled.  And I don't mean literally in the messed up "figuratively" sense that such a word has come to mean, I mean literally in the more common sense - as in it really and truly cannot be cancelled if it was never the plan to begin with.
> 
> *So show me evidence it was the actual plan.  Mike says they do lots of speculative stuff which isn't necessarily planned for release, it's just R&D experimentation in-house. If I say to my art guy "mock up a cover for this, I want to see what it would look like in case we decide to do something like that" and then I don't release the book with that mocked-up cover, the book with that cover was not cancelled - it never was a planned release to begin with.  It was just an experiment - a part of the whole development process.
> 
> If you're going to accuse Mike of lying, or being ignorant of his own business (and you seem to be saying one or both of those things), then the burden is on you to prove it was actually a planned thing to begin with.  So far, you have not proven that. * Which probably means you shouldn't be accusing him of lying or being ignorant until you can provide that evidence.  To me, it looks like you're ignorant (as in lacking information) but just bullying ahead and drawing harsh conclusions anyway despite that ignorance.  Hardly a position of strength or persuasion.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 11, 2015)

kettite said:


> For what must be the third time on this site, there was no "leak".  This is where all the information came from:
> http://edelweiss.abovethetreeline.com/CatalogOverview.aspx?catalogID=407200



But can we trust you? Your sig says "Ignore me!"


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

BryonD said:


> First, if someone thinks interacting with the public is fair, then they should not be interacting with the public.




I think you meant UNfair.  But, I am not saying their interaction with the public is unfair, I am saying YOUR reaction is unfair.  Not "any" reaction from you would be considered fair, right? I mean, we both agree (I assume) that on the scale of reactions, had you said "They should all be executed at gun point for their failures", that would be an unfair reaction, right? So, some reactions will be fair and others not, and I am saying your personal reaction of holding them to that high of a standard is unfair under these circumstances.  If entire Governments can't handle the standard you're proposing, it's probably unfair to expect it of WOTC.  That's my point.



> Second, I don't think anyone is giving any of these other organizations as pass either.   When they are oblivious, they hear about it.




So is there ANY standard which is appropriate for a huge business, a huge Government, but not appropriate for a smaller entity like WOTC, in your opinion?



> Third, WotC was interacting about the title, so I don't think that really stands up.




The only interaction I saw was them saying basically, "Huh? What? We never announced that!" That's not what I'd call interaction that's not standing up.  If you have something different, I'd like to see it.



> Again, it is a fair and understandable mistake.  Agree to that and move on.  But if you want to act like it wasn't a mistake, that is doubling down.




What mistake? Let's say someone illegally stole the cover.  Is that a WOTC mistake? 



> They let the cover be out thus implicitly "announcing it"




Wait, WHERE is your evidence that they "let" the cover be out? That's the entire unknown of this matter, and you're assuming it's known? Show me that proof.



> then they tried to trick the fans by misrepresenting something that was publicly available as something that was not publicly available.




What trick? How is it a trick for someone to, apparently, secretly swipe some R&D artwork and release it to a public website, and then when they find out they say "Hey, we didn't do that!" What trick has been demonstrated?



> My tone is "it is what it is, no big deal, but don't try to pretend it isn't'".   From my perspective you seem to be suggesting that they did nothing wrong (wrong meaning "PR goof") and any disagreement is a claim they are "nefarious" borderline criminals.




No the nefarious part is your description of it being a fast one.  You're the only one who used that description, not "any" disagreement just your particular choice of disagreement.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

kettite said:


> For what must be the third time on this site, there was no "leak".  This is where all the information came from:
> http://edelweiss.abovethetreeline.com/CatalogOverview.aspx?catalogID=407200




How did Above the Treeline get it? I understand they pull data from various sources, but no other companies pulled that data that I saw, so why/how did they get that data?


----------



## kettite (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> How did Above the Treeline get it? I understand they pull data from various sources, but no other companies pulled that data that I saw, so why/how did they get that data?




Random House, distributor for Wizards of the Coast.

Catalog Search: Posted: Clear
1 catalog found
Wizards of the Coast, Spring 2015
8 Titles
Date Added: Aug 20, 2014
Posted By: Random House


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

kettite said:


> Random House, distributor for Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> Catalog Search: Posted: Clear
> 1 catalog found
> ...




Which begs the question, how did they get it? That's really what this is all about.  How did an outside source (call them Kettie/Above the Treeline/Random House/Whatever) get something which the division head says he didn't release?


----------



## neobolts (Mar 11, 2015)

Wow this thread got weird. Are we really debating the meaning of everyday words?

I'll say this: Diamond Distributors (the big hobby shop distributor where most FLGS get literally everything they stock) would rate things as how assured they were. It has been years since I went through a catalog, but they had number rankings of the different products coming to market. For a D&D book to show up on a retailer site with a date and MSRP means they were decently far along before they reversed course. They would've been right on the cusp of either announcing the product or dropping it right before the PotA announcement. I'm guessing they had some major concerns about the book when they got the finished draft.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

neobolts said:


> Wow this thread got weird. Are we really debating the meaning of everyday words?
> 
> I'll say this: Diamond Distributors (the big hobby shop distributor where most FLGS get literally everything they stock) would rate things as how assured they were. It has been years since I went through a catalog, but they had number rankings of the different products coming to market. For a D&D book to show up on a retailer site with a date and MSRP means they were decently far along before they reversed course. They would've been right on the cusp of either announcing the product or dropping it right before the PotA announcement. I'm guessing they had some major concerns about the book when they got the finished draft.




Diamond is mostly a comics distributor, though they do distribute some things outside of comics.  Comics is a much more volatile industry.  The source here appears to be Random House, and as far as I can tell there is no rating system there - it's either on or off, no options outside of that.  But all the other retailer sites (including Amazon and Barnes and Noble) did not list it that way.  So it's quite unclear what happened here.


----------



## phantomK9 (Mar 11, 2015)

In an effort to get this thread back to talking about the document itself...



Sword of Spirit said:


> I like it.
> 
> One thing I'm seeing that no one else has brought up is that the Air and Earth Genasi seem weak relative to the other Genasi (or other races in general). Just compare Air to Water, for example--or compare Air to Aarakocra.
> 
> ...




At first blush I didn't think so (too excited about looking at the new stuff), but after going over the stats several times, I'm left with the distinct impression that not only do the Air and Earth seem underpowered, it feels like all of them might be underpowered.

From what I can see, the base stats only give +2 to Con and access to Primordial.
The sub-races each have _about_ the same number of abilities as say a dwarf or an elf sub-race (actually a couple short). 

I guess the crux is:
1. How much is it worth having a non-common language? All Genasi start with Common and Primordial.
2. How powerful of an ability is _Unending Breath_? To me it gives complete immunity to any inhaled dangers like knockout gas and the like.

I'm confused at to why only the Fire and Water Genasi have access to the brand new cantrips that were released. And yet they also get access to another related elemental spell.

Why didn't the Air and Earth get access to each of the new types of elemental cantrips in addition to their once per long rest spell?

I think I will need to do a bit of a break down and in depth comparison between the Genasi and Dwarves/Elves. I have a feeling just a minor tweak might be needed (to make me happy in my game).

All in all however, I am _loving_ this thing. A+ on the artwork. List of spells are great. I'm not a huge fan of the Aarakocra but this makes them at least playable. Deep gnomes look like fun which is something I have never said. Of course I would expect as much from 5e, which is the only edition I have played where I didn't instantly hate the gnomes.

Likewise, Goliath are never something I thought about before, but ater reading through them, I'm instantly thinking of characters for these guys and possibly allowing them in my game (when I get around to running one that is).


----------



## Klaus (Mar 11, 2015)

phantomK9 said:


> I'm confused at to why only the Fire and Water Genasi have access to the brand new cantrips that were released. And yet they also get access to another related elemental spell.




Fire genasi get Produce Flame, not a new cantrip.

Compare these genasi with a variant human taking the Magic Initiate feat:

Human: +1, +1, extra skill, 2 cantrips, 1 1st-level spell 1/day.
Air Genasi: +2, +1, hold breath, 1 2nd-level spell 1/day.
Earth Genasi: +2, +1, ignore difficult terrain, 1 2nd-level spell 1/day.
Fire Genasi: +2, +1, darkvision, resist fire, 1 cantrip, 1 1st-level spell 1/day at 3rd level.
Water Genasi: +2, +1, swim speed, amphibious, resist acid, 1 cantrip, 1 1st-level spell 1/day at 3rd level.

Seems Air and Earth got less stuff because they're using higher-level spells (like the DMG eladrin using Misty Step).


----------



## phantomK9 (Mar 11, 2015)

Klaus said:


> Fire genasi get Produce Flame, not a new cantrip.



Yes sorry, not a NEW cantrip but still a cantrip.



> Compare these genasi with a variant human taking the Magic Initiate feat:
> 
> Human: +1, +1, extra skill, 2 cantrips, 1 1st-level spell 1/day.
> Air Genasi: +2, +1, hold breath, 1 2nd-level spell 1/day.
> ...




Cool break down, I'd do this myself, but at work right now, so don't have books (where for art thou PDFs?).

Not to be argumentative, but comparing to Human may not be the best. For Humans, everything is "of your choice" which I have found that 5e was designed with the general idea of "one thing of your choice = two things of our choice". This is of course not a hard and fast rule, but the numbers seem to work out that way. 

I would still like to compare them to Dwarves and Elves, but thanks for quickly doing the work.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> The answer to your post is contained within the parts of my post that you cut.  Here you go again.



I ignored it because it was not accurate and I wanted to focus on the mistake you made when you repeated Mearls's line. Saying that something needs to be announced to be cancelled is simply wrong. I proved that you do not need to announce (publically, to be specific) something to cancel it and, clearly, you do not dispute that fact. Mearls was indeed being pedantic and disingenuous, I agree with Morrus: 







> That particular episode rubbed me up the wrong way. Pendantry never attracts me to anything; and the whole "a D&D book is like a National Security secret" angle is starting to become obnoxious. Especially when ad copy exists, is being circulated, and they say nothing and then pretend to be surprised that anybody ever thought anything.




Now for planning. I can't believe I'm indulging this. Anyway, this is what Mearls and Morrus said on twitter:



> MikeMearls : We can't cancel a book we never announced!
> Morrus : Interesting. You guys made ad copy and designed a cover for it, though?
> MikeMearls : we do a lot of stuff that may or may not end up as a released product.
> MikeMearls : we've played things close to the vest is that it's a huge, open question on what support for the RPG should look like
> ...




Notice how Mearls doesn't deny that a cover and ad copy where made for those products. And why would he? Those were made public on a online retailer's website in August and January. At least Mearls did not deny reality. If you make an ad copy with a price, it is because you are planning for a release. Plans change, and like Mearls said, they may not end up as a release product, but they still have to plan for that evenduality. Art, content, editiing, print doesn't happen over night.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Which begs the question, how did they get it? That's really what this is all about.  How did an outside source (call them Kettie/Above the Treeline/Random House/Whatever) get something which the division head says he didn't release?




By division head do you mean Mearls? Mearls never said the ad copys were not released to some distributors. 

And it isn't that special to release ad copys to distributors.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 11, 2015)

It might have been pedantic, but it's _pretty much standard for any business that creates things._  In fact, I can't think of a single industry that doesn't create prototypes or test runs.  Heck, I'm just a small time Indie dude, and I've made boardgames and lots of other books or things that won't ever see final production, even though they were fully created and had test copies made.  I've even sent full completed copies of my boardgame to third party testers, and decided to not go forward (construction costs were too high in the end).   Lord knows I have a buttload ton of commissioned art for projects that won't see the light of day.  I can only imagine the things WoTC has done that they decided for one reason or another to not go full print run on.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 11, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It's a reasonable development.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> WotC presumably thinks this links them more closely with some iconic adventures, and fair enough, but those adventures were never iconic to my personal D&D experience, so linking them more closely is pretty irrelevant to how I'd usually use 'em.



Fair enough. But as someone recently posted,



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I really love how 5e isn't afraid to put options out there that not everyone will use. Rather than trying to water-down the aarakocra to please everyone who doesn't like flying at an early level, they just let the aarakocra be what they are and rely on DMs who don't like the thing to say "not in my game, buddy." That's awesome. It helps say something about games that both allow them and games that aren't interested in 'em, lets the DM take games in their own direction, and doesn't worry about making "knock-offs" that try to please everyone.



This applies to flavour as much as mechanics, doesn't it?


----------



## neobolts (Mar 11, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> I like it.
> 
> One thing I'm seeing that no one else has brought up is that the Air and Earth Genasi seem weak relative to the other Genasi (or other races in general). Just compare Air to Water, for example--or compare Air to Aarakocra.
> 
> ...




Comparing Air to Arakocra is painful. The EE Optimization thread covers it well, so I won't rehash that here.

What I did want to point out, is how elegantly they handled arakocra and their always-on flying. They didn't restict it or bring back ECL or anything like that. They followed their 5e philosophy and let the DM decide. They put an opening paragraph on the entry, essentially "HEY DMs PAY ATTENTION! This could royally screw up you campaign, so think about it when the player asks for it." Simple, and all that's really needed. They recognized the balance issues and called them out, then took a step back.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 11, 2015)

Personally, I think the most obvious ways to maintain balance is to not gloss over the role playing aspect of some of these races.  Do I think a genasi will be well received in a small town?  Possibly a very superstitious town?  Of course not.  Choosing a race for pure optimization reasons may end up being more trouble than it's worth in the grand scheme of the entire game.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 11, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I ignored it because it was not accurate




Are you calling me a liar? If not, what was inaccurate, and why would you not say what is inaccurate at the time instead of cutting it out of your response?  Please stop doing that.  It's become a habit, and it's impolite (and I've already asked once before politely that you not do it).  You don't have to respond to everything of course, but don't lift sentences from paragraphs when those sentences are clearly modified by the rest of the paragraph.  When you remove context and pretend like there was none, you misrepresent what was said.



> . and I wanted to focus on the mistake you made when you repeated Mearls's line. Saying that something needs to be announced to be cancelled is simply wrong. I proved that you do not need to announce (publically, to be specific) something to cancel it and, clearly, you do not dispute that fact. Mearls was indeed being pedantic and disingenuous,




You took a single sentence out of context from what Mearls said (similar to what you did to me as well).  He didn't say that in isolation, he explained what he meant by it, and what he meant by it is not what you're responding to right now.  Which is why I repeated it back to you, to make sure you say what I saw and what he said.  He didn't say "nothing in the world can be cancelled if it was never announced" (which is what you're responding to), he said that in the context of an unfinished experimental R&D thing it cannot be cancelled before it's been announced.  Now maybe you disagree with his view, but it's not as certain a thing as you're making it out to be in that context.  There are in fact some things which cannot be cancelled until they've first been announced, and this may be one of those sorts of things, and maybe not.



> Notice how Mearls doesn't deny that a cover and ad copy where made for those products. And why would he? Those were made public on a online retailer's website in August and January




Ah, that may be the source of the confusion here.  No, it was not made public on an online retailer's website - at least not by WOTC.  They were showing a distributor (in this case, Random House) what their unfinished plans were.  No retailers were given that information.  If some retailer posted it, they took it from the Random House information, which is not intended for release.

But whatever you respond to this post - please, don't cut out parts of the post when you respond.  Nobody cares if you respond to everything, but please leave the context there.


----------



## Gecko85 (Mar 11, 2015)

Boss: "Did you put in a vacation request for Hawaii?"
Me: "Huh? I'm not going to Hawaii."
Boss: "I saw the brochure on your desk."
Me: "I was considering it, but decided against. Don't have the funds right now."
Boss: "If you're going to cancel your vacation, you need to let HR know."
Me: "I'm not canceling anything. I never put in a vacation request. I can't cancel what I didn't announce."


----------



## Moorcrys (Mar 11, 2015)

Klaus said:


> Fire genasi get Produce Flame, not a new cantrip.
> 
> Compare these genasi with a variant human taking the Magic Initiate feat:
> 
> ...




Thanks for the breakdown.

Though it seems to be 'balanced' mechanically, I think I'll add the earth and air-focused cantrips to the earth and air genasi. I just feel like they should be there flavor-wise and I don't think they're game-breaking enough to deny them.

I really like the material they added in this little packet - I could have done with some Cleric domains and Elemental Monk stuff and maybe an elemental warlock patron but truthfully between this and the necromancer games stuff I purchased I'm pretty inspired to make up my own stuff.

That whirlwind pic is truly awesome though - one of my favorites. Cheers!


----------



## Klaus (Mar 11, 2015)

My personal preferences, which I'll be house ruling into the races:

Air and Earth Genasi: gain the new air and earth cantrips from EEPC.
Goliath: Mighty: When a goliath wields a Versatile weapon, they deal the increased damage even if wielding the weapon one-handed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 11, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Are you calling me a liar?



No. Just someone who was mistaken. It is obvious you were not fully informed of the situation. That there were online retailers who had the ad copys and cover art and made them public back in August (the ad copys were from August).



> If not, what was inaccurate, and why would you not say what is inaccurate at the time instead of cutting it out of your response?



Because it side tracks from the main conversation which is Mearls being pedantic and disingenuous about us knowing that a splatbook was being worked on and that it got cancelled. Seriously, you've made this about me now.



> Please stop doing that.



Please, do not tell me to not do things you do yourself. This sort of double standard is insulting. I can quote and respond to the parts I want of a post. If you do not like it that is your issue, not mine. 



> It's become a habit, and it's impolite (and I've already asked once before politely that you not do it).  You don't have to respond to everything of course, but don't lift sentences from paragraphs when those sentences are clearly modified by the rest of the paragraph.  When you remove context and pretend like there was none, you misrepresent what was said.



I disagree. Sometimes people just repeat the same idea over and over in different sentences and paragraph. Sometimes they just get off track. I like to target the main idea of someone's reasoning. Sometime I have more time and can indulge in the side tracking.



> You took a single sentence out of context from what Mearls said (similar to what you did to me as well).



I disagree. That was his main thesis. I confronted his statement. You can indeed cancel a product that hasn't been announced.  



> He didn't say that in isolation, he explained what he meant by it, and what he meant by it is not what you're responding to right now.



I disagree. The whole thing was PR, spin. Nothing wrong with that. Unless you become condescending, which he did.



> Which is why I repeated it back to you, to make sure you say what I saw and what he said.  He didn't say "nothing in the world can be cancelled if it was never announced" (which is what you're responding to), he said that in the context of an unfinished experimental R&D thing it cannot be cancelled before it's been announced. Now maybe you disagree with his view, but it's not as certain a thing as you're making it out to be in that context.There are in fact some things which cannot be cancelled until they've first been announced, and this may be one of those sorts of things, and maybe not.



I disagree that this is the case. Designers and artists were paid to work on it. Ad copys and cover art made their way to a publisher and retailers. A price was fixed. Then it got cancelled. I happens. Nothing dramatic. What people are talking about is Mearls' attitude. You know, the one Morrus finds pedantic and obnoxious.



> Ah, that may be the source of the confusion here.  No, it was not made public on an online retailer's website - at least not by WOTC.  They were showing a distributor (in this case, Random House) what their unfinished *plans* were.  No retailers were given that information.  If some retailer posted it, they took it from the Random House information, which is not intended for release.



Whoa there, cowboy. That is your interpretation of events. Your opinion. WotC never confirmed any of this. All that we know for a fact is that retailers made ad copys and the cover art public. We do not know if this is just routine operations. WotC certainly did not deny anything back in August. And WotC certainly did not warn the retailer to not do this again. Cause they did it  again in January.  

On a side note, if they were making plans... Well, I discussed this already.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Mar 12, 2015)

Holy crap. Just wanted to comment on the ACTUAL ARTICLE up for discussion, and then my head imploded around page 8. Wow, that really got off track there. (And still is...)

Moderators. Any chance of moving all the 'unofficial/leaked/WoTC' stuff to another thread. Seriously.

Anyway, I liked the article. Always fond of new races. I will be making goliaths a subrace of an overall giant-kin race myself (which could also include half-giants/psionic giants and the giants of Diamond Throne).

Love the genasi, but I feel they need a little more (which they will get in our games b/c we have drawbacks too).

The elemental spells are great. There will be people modifying their archetypes on the House RUles section right now. As I will have to do with the sha'ir there.

As to clerics having too many spells. We have always limited this list to a selected number, but I will talk about that in another thread...hopefully with some answers before it devolves into a rant/argument/debate/threadjack about a totally different thing.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 12, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> Which begs the question, how did they get it? That's really what this is all about.  How did an outside source (call them Kettie/Above the Treeline/Random House/Whatever) get something which the division head says he didn't release?




Either an extensive industrial espionage campaign to obtain the name of a roleplaying game book, or a third party wrote their own ad copy and designed their own cover in a Machiavellian plan to rule.... something.... .... or the information was in fact released. Just not... errr... "announced". I guess we're left to guess which of the three is most likely!

Are you sure he's the division head? Was it announced?


----------



## gyor (Mar 12, 2015)

I think one should compare Genasi to aasimar and atieflings, not elves or humans. 

 Tieflings get Infernal, Dark Vision, Infernal resistance (fire resistance), and Infernal Legacy (which gives them a stylish Cantrip, and 2 once per day spells).

 Fire Genasi also has fire resistance, Darkvision, Primordial, a cantrip (which is usually more useful), and a 1 1st level spell instead of 2 higher level spells, but its front loaded, unlike the Tiefling spells.

 Air Genasi, no cantrip, no resistance, no darkvision, it should have all three, but it doesn't. It does have a 2nd level spell, front loaded, and you can hold your breath forever, but that will be very situtational at best. 

 Aasimar is like Tieflings, but you get radiant/necrotic resistance, spells like Tiefling, but friendlier, and Celestial which the common folks will be very impressed by. Spells are useful, but require you to level up.

 Water Genasi- Like Fire Genasi, but more specialized for aquatic, shape water requires more creativity to be useful then produce flame, acid is a more rare damage type, and but water breathing can have its uses.

 Earth Genasi- like Air Genasi, but more grounded hahaha, might be good ranger or rogue with pass without a trace and the hole ignoring difficult terrian, but too situational, its only earth caused difficult terrian. pass with out a trace will be rarely if ever used by none scouts and its stats don't support a scout build much. I honestly see leviate as more useful. 

 As for deep Gnome, your going to want the feat, that's the real meat of the race. 

 the birdmen, well Adventurer's legue has already banned it, so enough said.

 Goliaths, Good Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Strength rangers and you get to be the parties pack mule!

 Of these the mostly the only ones I'd likely use are the deep gnome, the Goliath, the Fire Genasi, and for the right campaign Water Genasi, and with the right build Air Genasi (ranged only likely).



§


----------



## JEB (Mar 12, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> Anyone else find the deep gnome magic presented as a feat to be...interesting? I don't know if I like it or not. It was certainly unexpected to be put in that way...and, of course, has implications as to the "optional" expectations of Feats in general...or opens up the whole can of worms o individual tables "ok'ing this feat but not that one".
> 
> But, like I said, unexpected...not entirely unwelcome...but intriguing why they would chose to do innate racial magic for this race this way...




I share your misgivings. While quite interesting, even elegant... this approach changes feats from a neat addition to something the rules assume are around. Sure, they're still optional, but it's a slightly different flavor of optional.

Also, I don't understand why they didn't take a page from the drow, and just space the abilities out as the character levels up. (In fact, think I may try asking about that on Twitter.)


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Mar 12, 2015)

gyor said:


> Earth Genasi- like Air Genasi, but more grounded hahaha, might be good ranger or rogue with pass without a trace and the hole ignoring difficult terrian, but too situational, its only earth caused difficult terrian. pass with out a trace will be rarely if ever used by none scouts and its stats don't support a scout build much. I honestly see leviate as more useful.




In this context, what's a "scout build"? It seems to me that access to Pass Without Trace is sufficient to convert _any_ build to a decent scout build. Then just add in proficiency in Stealth from a background and Bob's your uncle. You could have a DX 8 Earth Genasi Battlemaster in clanking plate mail, and between low DX, Stealth proficiency, disadvantage on Stealth, and Pass Without Trace he'd still be averaging 12 on his Stealth checks at level 5, which is good enough to beat lots of creatures' passive Perception. That's how good Pass Without Trace is--it turns anyone stealthy, and it makes stealthy guys super-stealthy. In fact, it turns your whole _party_ super-stealthy. And it's not like Battlemasters have anything better to do with their concentration anyway.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2015)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough. But as someone recently posted,
> 
> This applies to flavour as much as mechanics, doesn't it?




Totally. Not saying they shouldn't have done it, just saying it doesn't resonate with me, so it's not something I'm personally that interested in.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2015)

goldomark said:


> No. Just someone who was mistaken. It is obvious you were not fully informed of the situation. That there were online retailers who had the ad copys and cover art and made them public back in August (the ad copys were from August).
> 
> Because it side tracks from the main conversation which is Mearls being pedantic and disingenuous about us knowing that a splatbook was being worked on and that it got cancelled. Seriously, you've made this about me now.
> 
> ...




You should read the stuff I posted from Twitter today where Mearls responded to my request for information about this.  He explains it was not an intentional leak, that they don't do intentional leaks, and it was stuff they showed a distributor, and they often show distributors stuff that isn't a finished plan and even entire lines that are never made.  I thought you had read that earlier when you were responding.  I guess you missed it.

More importantly, I don't think our discussion is going anywhere good. I asked you politely repeatedly to not cut context from posts, you are refusing which is your right, but I feel it's resulting in misrepresentations of what I've said.  Given that, I don't think I should continue this discussion with you.  But feel free to have the last word.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Like there is no paticular reason to believe Kettie leaked it or that is was all an accident.




Of course there is - WotC never announced anything.



> WotC could have done it as a marketing strategy. That you disagree with this sort of strategy doesn't mean that WotC didn't do it. What would make it untrue is WotC saying Kettie leaked it or Kettie saying "we leaked it without WotC's consent." None of these statements have been made so far. I do not think they will be made either. So we are left with speculations.




They don't need to deny the veracity an announcement they never actually made in order to prove it wasn't true. 



> The problem with your opinion is that you start with the premise that leaks cannot be factual.




After all that wasted word count, you still have no idea what I'm actually saying. And since I've got little interest in talking to myself, I guess we're done here.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 12, 2015)

For those curious, from the other thread (I asked him "Back when a potential cover for the Elemental Player's Guide appeared on EnWorld, was that an authorized or unauthorized leak?")



Mistwell said:


> "Leaks are never authorized.  Distributors, etc. get to see our plans when they are still forming, rather than final.  For instance, I think we shared 5e release dates with retailers/distributors and later changed them.  We've also shown off entire game lines that were never released."
> 
> So looks like this was not an authorized leak, it was not some intentional customer-oriented teaser being put out there.  It was, apparently, intended for distributors to see as part of a not-final plan that was not intended for consumers, which the distributors know is sometimes changed or even entirely pulled before the plan is finalized.  At least, that's how I read that.


----------



## AmmiPierce (Mar 12, 2015)

I feel bad for any member of these new races that gets Reincarnate cast on them. They need to update the table already.


----------



## Connorsrpg (Mar 12, 2015)

One thing I think missing from the Aaracokra is their wingspan. This could be a very limiting option for flight. It is in our game. We required a square/5ft to be free on either side of the fligher for our race of aaracokra-like race (harkrinn). So, they cannot actually fly in small spaces. This is important for things like tunnels and pit traps. It prevents a lot of headaches too.

"I will constantly fly along the tunnels".

Seems odd they did not mention this as a limiting factor.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 12, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Of course there is - WotC never announced anything.



I never said WotC announced anything. I understand you missed a few posts in this thread. What I called Kettite was an online retail store. That store was the one who made the ad copys and the cover art for the books public. It was something WotC gave to distributors. We knew WotC was working on a splatbook, and eventually cancelled it, because the ad copys and cover were made public by that distributor. 



> They don't need to deny the veracity an announcement they never actually made in order to prove it wasn't true.



So your going with the "it doesn't exist if WotC doesn't announce it" line? Things can exist without being made public, you know. We knew it was being made because an online distributor released the info. It ended up on ENworld in the news section. Twice. Then WotC cancelled it.



> After all that wasted word count, you still have no idea what I'm actually saying. And since I've got little interest in talking to myself, I guess we're done here.



What words? You made claims, but didn't put out arguments to defend them. Just because you are an mod doesn't mean you can make various claims without baking them up. An opinion is just that without a defense. If you wanna save face, no problem. You can leave the discussiong. Hopefully you learn a few things.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So your going with the "it doesn't exist if WotC doesn't announce it" line? Things can exist without being made public, you know. We knew it was being made because an online distributor released the info. It ended up on ENworld in the news section. Twice. Then WotC cancelled it..




They can exist without being made public.  But who cares if they exist or not?  That's like saying that Apple has to issue a statement saying that their television set that has been rumored all over the internet for the last 3 years has been cancelled.  They've never once stated they were working on a television.  But blogs, tech news sites and so on have been reporting how big it was going to be and what features it would have for years.  These sites have even sited sources from within the company that have leaked that information to them.

Apple doesn't care.  They never announced a product and, to them, it doesn't exist until it is officially announced.

During the last couple of years there has been all sorts of rumors about 20 or 30 different products that Apple is supposedly working on.  I'd bet at least 10% of the rumors are actually true and Apple is working on them in some capacity.  But does it really matter?  If those products never come out then they don't exist.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 12, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> They can exist without being made public.  But who cares if they exist or not?  That's like saying that Apple has to issue a statement saying that their television set that has been rumored all over the internet for the last 3 years has been cancelled.  They've never once stated they were working on a television.  But blogs, tech news sites and so on have been reporting how big it was going to be and what features it would have for years.  These sites have even sited sources from within the company that have leaked that information to them.
> 
> Apple doesn't care.  They never announced a product and, to them, it doesn't exist until it is officially announced.
> 
> During the last couple of years there has been all sorts of rumors about 20 or 30 different products that Apple is supposedly working on.  I'd bet at least 10% of the rumors are actually true and Apple is working on them in some capacity.  But does it really matter?  If those products never come out then they don't exist.



The problem is the way Mearls handled it. 

He came up with some lame excuse that only an honest to god idiot would believe. It was actually insulting.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> The problem is the way Mearls handled it.
> 
> He came up with some lame excuse that only an honest to god idiot would believe. It was actually insulting.




Except his excuse was "We never announced it so we can't cancel it."  Which was true.  Unless you mean his excuse was "We decided to reevaluate what support for an RPG looks like".  Which also seems to be true.  So, unless "he came up with some lame excuse" means "he told us the complete truth", I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 12, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Except his excuse was "We never announced it so we can't cancel it."  Which was true.  Unless you mean his excuse was "We decided to reevaluate what support for an RPG looks like".  Which also seems to be true.  So, unless "he came up with some lame excuse" means "he told us the complete truth", I don't know what to tell you.



You don't have to announce something to make it eligible for cancellation. If you are working on a product with the intention of selling it and you cancel it before you announce it officially then it's still a cancellation. 

They intended for a book to be released. They leaked info to others who then leaked it without permission. Apparently they didn't have enough content to fill the book so it was cancelled. 

Mearls' statement is like me saying "because I wasn't there to hear it, the tree never made a noise when it fell".


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2015)

That's not true at all.  As I said above, Apple doesn't "cancel" the Apple Television that it's likely been working on when it decides not to put it out.  Despite the existence of a large amount of proof it exists, you'll never find Apple acknowledging that fact.  They don't discuss rumors, even when they are blatant.  Even if someone has pictures of an iPhone 7.  They just issue a statement that says "We have not announced a product like that".

That's the normal way for companies to deal with these situations.  If a product isn't announced, it doesn't exist.  The company simply doesn't acknowledge it.  Otherwise the company would be constantly dealing with customer questions and complaints when they decide to create 20 test products in a year and only 2 of them actually end up being sold.  Someone, somewhere, is going to think one of the other 18 was the best thing since sliced bread and complain loudly about how your company refuses to release the best thing they've ever created because they hate their customers.  The best way to deal with it is to pretend it never existed and to refuse to acknowledge it until everyone forgets about it.  Talking about it just makes it more public and causes more and more people to get angry over it.

You can cancel a book internally.  But then the only people you tell that it's been cancelled are your employees and any partners who need to know.  You don't issue a press release.

Companies try to keep 90% of what they are doing hidden.

As for the book itself, no one has ever stated that there wasn't enough content to fill a book.  I'm actually completely confident that they had enough content to fill a book scheduled.  But a bunch of it didn't ever get written because they changed their mind about making a book before it did.  I also think that a LOT more content was already created for the book and they will be released in Unearthed Arcana columns of their website over the next 6 months.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 12, 2015)

Why are you still arguing, Majoru? 

People got pissed. It's bad customer service to piss off your customers. 

Ergo, Mearls handled it badly.

Who's actually right or wrong has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2015)

I have no problem with people saying "I don't like that they cancelled the book!  I wanted it!"  Sure.  You wanted it, you are pissed.  Completely understandable.  I wanted the book, too.  I was very disappointed that it wasn't coming out.  I was looking forward to some new class features.  I want more choices for my elemental monk.

However, that's not what people are saying.  They are saying that Mearls handled it wrong.  There is absolutely NOTHING he could of said that wouldn't have had at least some people on the internet pissed.  The book got cancelled and he was the guy in charge.  If he had said "Yes, we cancelled it" someone would be yelling at him because of how callous he was in answering so curtly.  If he said "I'm sorry, we decided to cancel it" someone would be saying "I eagerly anticipated that book for months and all he can say is 'I'm sorry'?  What a jerk!"

He handled it the best way he could given the circumstances he was in.

People control their own reactions.  Blaming other people for the way you are feeling is just plain stupid.  Mearls didn't make you pissed.  You decided to get pissed all on your own.  You can just as easily decide not to be pissed anymore.

But if you need to stay pissed, then at least acknowledge that you are pissed about the book being cancelled and not about the theoretically circumstances of a book being officially announced or not officially announced before it was cancelled or about the semantics of some guy on the internet.


----------



## Sailor Moon (Mar 12, 2015)

What is wrong are people claiming we aren't seeing a future release schedule because Wizards is afraid of the backlash if they have to cancel something. 

Seriously, could we please step out of the fantasy world and enter the real one? If they were cancelling stuff left and right on a regular basis then I could understand the concern, but thinking that because you have to cancel a product is going to create such backlash that a large population of customers are going to ragequit is just silly. Backlash comes with the territory, but more backlash cam be generated by being too tight lipped. 

Nothing is ever a guarantee but keeping people in the dark when it's a very social game can be just as bad.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2015)

Sailor Moon said:


> Seriously, could we please step out of the fantasy world and enter the real one? If they were cancelling stuff left and right on a regular basis then I could understand the concern, but thinking that because you have to cancel a product is going to create such backlash that a large population of customers are going to ragequit is just silly. Backlash comes with the territory, but more backlash cam be generated by being too tight lipped.




From what Mearls said, they ARE cancelling stuff left and right on a regular basis.  He said they regularly come up with an idea for a book, write it up, give it to their publisher and then decide whether to go through with it after a while.  Some make it further than others in the process.  But, from what I know of the inner workings of WOTC(which isn't a huge amount, but it is more than most people given my ex-volunteer status for WOTC and having a couple WOTC employees on my Facebook friend list), they probably have at least 3 or 4 books in production right now.  Likely almost every developer at the company is in the middle of writing bits and pieces of a book they, personally, would like to see published and are writing enough of it to convince their boss that it's worth going through with.

They have said they already have the outline written for 2 adventures a year for the next 5 years.  They have finished the adventure that comes after Elemental Evil and are already working on the next one after that(which hasn't been announced yet).

We know they are working on getting PDFs to us...though they don't want to tell us how or when.  They are working on a replacement for DDI, but they aren't sure what they are charging for it or what will be in it.  They want digital tools and are working on finding an official character builder.

All of these things are being worked on within WOTC.  But they don't currently know which of them will come out or whether their boss will say no or Hasbro will say no, or their legal department will find a reason it isn't possible and cancel it.  So, they don't say anything.

I know at my job we have the same attitude.  I have to say absolutely nothing about what I'm working on to anyone.  We don't want corporate secrets getting out to our competitors both so they can't steal our processes or get a product out to market faster than us.  We don't want people using inside information to make money off our stocks.  We don't want knowledge of something we are working on that might get cancelled to leak out and cause problems with PR.  We don't want to be liable for something an employee said without realizing its legal significance.  We don't want to hurt our partners by leaking information they weren't ready to announce yet.  So, our policy is to say nothing to anyone.  No matter how small or insignificant it might seem.

I'm positive that the people at WOTC have similar rules for talking to the public.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2015)

Connorsrpg said:


> One thing I think missing from the Aaracokra is their wingspan. This could be a very limiting option for flight. It is in our game. We required a square/5ft to be free on either side of the fligher for our race of aaracokra-like race (harkrinn). So, they cannot actually fly in small spaces. This is important for things like tunnels and pit traps. It prevents a lot of headaches too.
> 
> "I will constantly fly along the tunnels".
> 
> Seems odd they did not mention this as a limiting factor.




I imagine they don't bother with wingspan as a default rule, but I really like it as an option, and it gives a mechanical reason for aarakocra to act as claustrophobic as they are mentioned as being. If you need a 15-ft. square of space to use your abilities, you're going to avoid melee and cramped dungeons like the plague!


----------



## Klaus (Mar 12, 2015)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I imagine they don't bother with wingspan as a default rule, but I really like it as an option, and it gives a mechanical reason for aarakocra to act as claustrophobic as they are mentioned as being. If you need a 15-ft. square of space to use your abilities, you're going to avoid melee and cramped dungeons like the plague!




I'd go even further: 15-ft. *cube* area. Any winged creature that flies too close to the ground would be forced to land. A Small creature (again, IMHO) could fly in smaller spaces (keep an empty 5-foot cube between it and the ground), and a Tiny creature could fly at any altitude without restriction.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 12, 2015)

Klaus said:


> I'd go even further: 15-ft. *cube* area. Any winged creature that flies too close to the ground would be forced to land. A Small creature (again, IMHO) could fly in smaller spaces (keep an empty 5-foot cube between it and the ground), and a Tiny creature could fly at any altitude without restriction.




I kinda like that this idea approximates the requirements for takeoff -- you can't just flap your wings and move, but take a 15-ft. leap, and you can get the speed you need.


----------



## steeldragons (Mar 12, 2015)

So..those svirfneblin, huh? That's a thing. 

I will chime in with those who were surprised at the lack of individual element cleric domains. Seems for the "Elemental Evil" story, domains of the elements and, maybe even, Evil (though their presentation of the Death domain was heavily skewed they way) would have been appropriate. I mean, they gave us the spells, so basng, say, an "Earth Domain" on Nature and slipping in Earth "domain spells" instead, or the Tempest turned more into "Air" than "Storm" domain spells is an easy enough homebrew. The lack of "official" domains is still something of a surprise in a story which, presumably, will involve fighting clerics of the elemental evils.

Elemental origin sorcerers, I would have thought a given, also. But, again, for that kind of character, they gave us the spells. If you want a water or fire (well, fire you could pretty much already do), air or earth or cold/ice sorcerer, just put the appropriately flavored new spells in the sorcerer list and go. 

As I've said in other threads, the sorcerer origin for "I have magic from this bloodline/ancestry", as the defining point/origin story of the sorcerer has already been done with the dragon. Just swap out "Dragon" for "Genie" and adjust the level-powers accordingly [for comparable flavor and power] to match.

Plus, with them presenting Genasi -"papa was a noble genie"- as a race, the introduction of essentially the same thing as a class might have been perceived/decided as redundant or confusing or steal some of the race's thunder.

So, I kinda get why "Elemental/Genie Bloodline" isn't there. It's not a "new" kind of origin...versus "Wild/Raw Magic" or [if I'm correct in my predictions] the Psionic/Mind "Magic" or...I don't know what else might be a different possible "source of innate magic" for a sorcerer...but the "magical being ancestor" we already [can make with what we] have.

But still, was fairly sure (along with many others, I'm sure) we'd see it. So, disappointing those aren't there, but still very doable with what they did give us.

Granted, I won't necessarily use all of it or make everything [or even most] here available to players. But, overall, fairly happy with the new pack o' free stuff.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Mar 12, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> You can cancel a book internally.  But then the only people you tell that it's been cancelled are your employees and any partners who need to know.  You don't issue a press release.
> 
> Companies try to keep 90% of what they are doing hidden.
> .




This is 100% accurate.  I work for a large company and we cancel projects all the time.  We never announce it to the world, let alone to the rest of the company.  Only to those who would have been involved working on it.  And as I mentioned upthread, as an Indie guy, I've cancelled projects of my own, even after books have been fully written and full boardgames have been created without announcing it.

This is normal behavior.



CapnZapp said:


> People got pissed. It's bad customer service to piss off your customers.
> 
> Ergo, Mearls handled it badly.
> 
> Who's actually right or wrong has nothing to do with it.




Well it should.  Because if someone is wrong and getting all worked up because they have this weird sense of entitlement that they should be treated extra special and WotC should cater to their desires more than any other business does is their problem.  Not Mearls' problem.

Seriously, holding Mearls and WotC to a higher standard than any other business is selfish, unrealistic, and unfair.  I also think that the number of people who are getting pissed off isn't very large, so I doubt WoTC are worried too much about it.  There are customers who will ALWAYS get pissed off.  Sailor Moon certainly seems to be one because he's done nothing but complain since day 1.  That's not bad customer service if you can't please everyone.  That's just a silly statement to make.


----------



## Fildrigar (Mar 12, 2015)

steeldragons said:


> So..those svirfneblin, huh? That's a thing.
> 
> I will chime in with those who were surprised at the lack of individual element cleric domains. Seems for the "Elemental Evil" story, domains of the elements and, maybe even, Evil (though their presentation of the Death domain was heavily skewed they way) would have been appropriate. I mean, they gave us the spells, so basng, say, an "Earth Domain" on Nature and slipping in Earth "domain spells" instead, or the Tempest turned more into "Air" than "Storm" domain spells is an easy enough homebrew. The lack of "official" domains is still something of a surprise in a story which, presumably, will involve fighting clerics of the elemental evils.
> 
> ...




Except that it's the enemies that are Elemental, so why would there be PC options for elemental domains? 

And I am absolutely certain that we will be seeing more stuff soon. Including new cleric domains.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 12, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Why are you still arguing, Majoru?
> 
> People got pissed. It's bad customer service to piss off your customers.
> 
> ...




Customers have reasonable expectations that must be met by a business.

But if they are wrong they are wrong.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 12, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I have no problem with people saying "I don't like that they cancelled the book!  I wanted it!"  Sure.  You wanted it, you are pissed.  Completely understandable.  I wanted the book, too.  I was very disappointed that it wasn't coming out.  I was looking forward to some new class features.  I want more choices for my elemental monk.
> 
> However, that's not what people are saying.  They are saying that Mearls handled it wrong.  There is absolutely NOTHING he could of said that wouldn't have had at least some people on the internet pissed.  The book got cancelled and he was the guy in charge.  If he had said "Yes, we cancelled it" someone would be yelling at him because of how callous he was in answering so curtly.  If he said "I'm sorry, we decided to cancel it" someone would be saying "I eagerly anticipated that book for months and all he can say is 'I'm sorry'?  What a jerk!"
> 
> ...



Sorry but my point is that
1) people got pissed specifically about how Mearls handled it
And
2) you need to accept that having pissed off customers is bad, no matter what you did or didn't do.

Either way, Mearls loses. If he had been less of a smartaleck, perhaps he could have avoiding that.

That is the point and no matter how reasonable you think he is, or how unfair you feel it is, is going to change the fact that he pissed off his customers. 

End of story.


----------



## weldon (Mar 12, 2015)

I think it's kinda weird to hold Mearls feet to the fire for an offhand reply to a question from someone he knows on Twitter. It's not like he issued a statement on behalf of the company. It's not like he used an official company account to comment on the matter. When he realized others were watching, he went on to elaborate a bit more to give a larger context for the decision. I think he did fine.

I kinda like this world where we have semi-access to people involved in creating products we like. I really dislike this attitude that we are allowed to crucify them for anything they say on their private accounts even when it was only said in reply to one person (but in a way where others could listen in).


----------



## Coredump (Mar 12, 2015)

delericho said:


> In combination with their other web articles, sure. Provided they do it monthly.
> 
> Edit: And no, I don't expect them to "do it monthly", nor indeed do I think it would be reasonable to expect them to do such a thing. It is, after all, free.




I think it would be *horrible* to have something like the EE players companion come out monthly.  That is just *way* more crunch bloating up the system than I want to deal with.


----------



## delericho (Mar 12, 2015)

Coredump said:


> I think it would be *horrible* to have something like the EE players companion come out monthly.




No, I agree that wouldn't be good. But *if* they wanted that sort of thing to be an replacement for Dragon, then monthly releases would be needed.

Because there are two big strengths of the Dragon format. The first is the range of material - much of it was pretty niche and would never show up in 99% of campaigns, but that didn't matter so much because of the range of it; they only needed to provide _enough_ for each individual customer.

And the other strength was the monthly nature of the thing. By giving regular drops of information (and regular drops of a fairly meaty chunk of information) they gave people things to get into, to discuss, and generally to remain engaged with the game over.

Don't get me wrong - this guide is great for what it is, and especially for being free. It's just not a substitute for Dragon. (Which isn't, actually, a criticism - after all, it isn't intended to be such a thing.)


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 12, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I know at my job we have the same attitude.  I have to say absolutely nothing about what I'm working on to anyone.




I worked for a company that does custom-designed, volunteer-built playgrounds. Two of us would fly to the jobsite on Tuesday, meet with the people in charge, and Wednesday at 7AM volunteers would start showing up. We'd work Wednesday to Sunday afternoon, the goal being obviously to complete the build in that time.

The #1 question we were asked is "Will it be done?", to which I would reply "ask me Saturday night". On Saturday, I'd tell them to ask me tomorrow.  

(Chances are, if you knew or know a large, amazing, wooden playground, they built it. I think there's probably still one every 30 miles or so along the East Coast, from Maine to Florida. They've built in all 50 states, plus the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and a few other countries. Best job ever.)


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 12, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Apple doesn't care.  They never announced a product and, to them, it doesn't exist until it is officially announced.




Of course it can. It is a fact that Sasquatch Games work on the splatbook for WotC. The content of the book exist. We even got a piece of it for free this week. Art was made for it. Cover and interior art. We saw them. They exist. WotC made an ad copy for it. We saw them. I mean this is just denial at this point.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 12, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> You should read the stuff I posted from Twitter today where Mearls responded to my request for information about this.  He explains it was not an intentional leak, that they don't do intentional leaks, and it was stuff they showed a distributor, and they often show distributors stuff that isn't a finished plan and even entire lines that are never made.  I thought you had read that earlier when you were responding.  I guess you missed it.




I saw it. So I means it was supposed to be made public since leaks aren't permitted. I woudn't call it an official announcement though. On that point I agree with Mearls.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 12, 2015)

Mistwell said:


> I think you meant UNfair.



No I meant fair.   

If someone thinks dealing with the public is based on "fairness" then they don't get dealing with the public and should not be doing it.



> The only interaction I saw was them saying basically, "Huh? What? We never announced that!" That's not what I'd call interaction that's not standing up.  If you have something different, I'd like to see it.



It is not about you.  It is not about me.  It is about managing overall PR.




> What mistake? Let's say someone illegally stole the cover.  Is that a WOTC mistake?



So ENWorld has an illegally stolen WotC property for weeks and they are oblivious?   Yes, that is a huge PR mistake.



> Wait, WHERE is your evidence that they "let" the cover be out? That's the entire unknown of this matter, and you're assuming it's known? Show me that proof.



What remote difference does this make to the PR question?




> No the nefarious part is your description of it being a fast one.  You're the only one who used that description, not "any" disagreement just your particular choice of disagreement.




I pulled a quarter out of my nephew's ear this weekend.  His dad told him I had pulled a "fast one".  
Your efforts to force a definition on the situation does nothing to change the PR being discussed.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Mar 13, 2015)

It was also just a joke that Mearls made as they never announced the product. Also almost no one was annoyed by this they were just curious.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2015)

Amusingly I just today received the press release from WotC announcing this!


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Mar 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Amusingly I just today received the press release from WotC announcing this!




Announcing what?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 18, 2015)

MonsterEnvy said:


> Announcing what?




The Elemental Evil Player's Companion.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 18, 2015)

Morrus said:


> The Elemental Evil Player's Companion.




I'm starting to wonder just how many people are out on jury duty.


----------

