Tasha's has a lot of "rules" for some simple, common sense stuff that seems really intended for first time players... That or stubborn players who insist on doing things completely by the book.
Primarily, we go by RaW, and Homebrew anything that doesn't fit, with a few noted rules we ignore. Encumbrance isn't addressed until someone is found to be hauling around a dozen great axes or something foolish. As with many others, no automatic Identify of items by sleeping with them, use the spell or have someone else use it for you.
Specific house rules we've homebrewed around:
Crits get the regular roll and a max roll on the bonus dice Potions are an action unless noted (Homebrewed small Healing potions were made that were a bonus action to swig) Spell Scrolls - One DM rules anyone who can cast can read them, I rule that if you use the same casting modifier you can try with a 13 DC Arcana check (Wisdom, Charisma or Intelligence) In my campaign the Wizard wanted some Cleric-y stuff so I homebrewed some buffs that fed off Arcane energies instead of Divine, Shield of Faith became of Arcane and Bless turned into Arcane Infusion, I think.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This thread made me aware of just how much homebrew we have in our campaign. I am going to start making a log of stuff to see how long the list becomes.
This thread made me aware of just how much homebrew we have in our campaign. I am going to start making a log of stuff to see how long the list becomes.
I'm excited to see it if you feel compelled to share!
Rules we don't use? Druids and metal armor. I also don't allow artificers (they don't fit in my setting), or allow players to cast wish. I also don't use the Customize Your Origin rules from Tasha's.
Rules we do use? No encumbrance, flanking, drinking potions as a bonus action, and a modification to the Storm Sorcerer (Tempestuous magic does not require you to cast a spell). So far these adjustments have not broken anything and have enhanced our game.
How many characters have strength as their main stat in your game?
None, the moon druid usually tanks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Tasha's has a lot of "rules" for some simple, common sense stuff that seems really intended for first time players... That or stubborn players who insist on doing things completely by the book.
Yes. This is exactly the thing. I am offended by the idea that they felt they needed to give me permission to headcannon if something looks exactly like it’s description or not! Tehfawk?!? I have been reskinning spell effects and weapons and such in D&D longer than WotC has been publishing the darn game. I don’t need their permanent and the fact they felt it necessary to go back in a subsequent (to the PHB) publication and expressly give it, I find insulting.
I also find it deeply disturbing that it actually is necessary for other players. This is a game entirely for, of, and about imagination. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be whatever the heck anybody can imagine it to be. The fact that they somehow managed to not make that clear in the first place is an issue. And frankly, I blame AL as “Imagination Enemy #1” because the whole point of the game somehow got lost in that. I think VTTs are “I E #2“ the same way movies ruin good books.
Imagine Thorn Whip to look like a fishing Rod with a Real spooled with barbed wire for an Artificer; or the “OG” Scorpion’s “GET OVER HERE!!” for a Monk who could cast it; or like the Grapple Gun from Batman, the Animated Series for a rogue! That’s your business. It’s your character, you’re the one narrating the effects, do whatever you want. Why was that ever in question?!?
The flip side of this is (and very in keeping with the whole thread) that as a DM I do not give too figs (and I really dislike figs, so I want none of them) what the heck it says you can do in that book, or any other. If something don’t work a certain way in my world, then it don’ work like that.
When did D&D become all about “Officially Published Content” and stop being about people getting together and telling each other a story?
Tasha's has a lot of "rules" for some simple, common sense stuff that seems really intended for first time players... That or stubborn players who insist on doing things completely by the book.
Yes. This is exactly the thing. I am offended by the idea that they felt they needed to give me permission to headcannon if something looks exactly like it’s description or not! Tehfawk?!? I have been reskinning spell effects and weapons and such in D&D longer than WotC has been publishing the darn game. I don’t need their permanent and the fact they felt it necessary to go back in a subsequent (to the PHB) publication and expressly give it, I find insulting.
I also find it deeply disturbing that it actually is necessary for other players. This is a game entirely for, of, and about imagination. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be whatever the heck anybody can imagine it to be. The fact that they somehow managed to not make that clear in the first place is an issue. And frankly, I blame AL as “Imagination Enemy #1” because the whole point of the game somehow got lost in that. I think VTTs are “I E #2“ the same way movies ruin good books.
Imagine Thorn Whip to look like a fishing Rod with a Real spooled with barbed wire for an Artificer; or the “OG” Scorpion’s “GET OVER HERE!!” for a Monk who could cast it; or like the Grapple Gun from Batman, the Animated Series for a rogue! That’s your business. It’s your character, you’re the one narrating the effects, do whatever you want. Why was that ever in question?!?
The flip side of this is (and very in keeping with the whole thread) that as a DM I do not give too figs (and I really dislike figs, so I want none of them) what the heck it says you can do in that book, or any other. If something don’t work a certain way in my world, then it don’ work like that.
When did D&D become all about “Officially Published Content” and stop being about people getting together and telling each other a story?
I've seen players' faces light up as this epiphany hit them. It may seem entirely unnecessary (and, apparently, insulting) to point out there are no limits other than their imagination, but some players do need a memo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I also find it deeply disturbing that it actually is necessary for other players. This is a game entirely for, of, and about imagination. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be whatever the heck anybody can imagine it to be. The fact that they somehow managed to not make that clear in the first place is an issue.
I wouldn't put this entirely on WotC. It seems obvious to us, but a lot of people who are unaccustomed to the freedom of D&D need more specifics than "use your imagination." Some people live in a world where they do this so rarely that they're not sure how to proceed. In addition, there's a line where imagination must defer to the rules. Exactly where that line is can be tricky and vary widely between tables, so I don't mind examples that can provide guidelines for newer players (and perhaps some DMs as well).
I've seen players' faces light up as this epiphany hit them. It may seem entirely unnecessary (and, apparently, insulting) to point out there are no limits other than their imagination, but some players do need a memo.
That’s my point, it shouldn’t have required an epiphany. This should have been made clear in the Basic Rules, the SRD, and the PHB. I never noticed that it wasn’t explicitly stated because it never occurred to me to look for it, and it never occurred to me that they wouldn’t have put it there either.
I wouldn't put this entirely on WotC. It seems obvious to us, but a lot of people who are unaccustomed to the freedom of D&D need more specifics than "use your imagination." Some people live in a world where they do this so rarely that they're not sure how to proceed. In addition, there's a line where imagination must defer to the rules. Exactly where that line is can be tricky and vary widely between tables, so I don't mind examples that can provide guidelines for newer players (and perhaps some DMs as well).
That’s precisely why it falls on WotC to make it clear that anyone should feel absolutely free to change the cosmetics of anything they want to. Cosmetic reskins affect absolutely nothing mechanically and shouldn’t have any adverse interactions with the rules. As long as nothing is affected mechanically, change whatever.
Right in the intro there should have been the most Innate rule of the game: Rule 0, Use Your Common Sense.
0.0. Regardless of what the rules say, the DM has the final word for how things work for that game. 0.1. Reskin anything in the game you want to look however you want as long as it doesn’t affect anything mechanically. 0.2. Don’t try to tell other players what they should or shouldn’t do. Play your character and let them play theirs. 0.3. Have fun.
That right there would have resolved so many of the issues people bring to these forums. Every “my players argue with me....” and “my DM says “X,” but....” “SHADDAP! Rule #0.0.”
A ton of the stuff in Tasha’s is all covered in #0.1.
The vast majority of disputes between players “SHADDAP! Rule #0.2.”
And all of those threads by DMs wondering if they should feel guilty about wanting to bail because of burnout, or by players wondering if it’s rude to duck in a game they don’t like. “SHADAP! Rule #0.3.”
Tell me that wouldn’t have been a good thing for everyone. Being able to point to “Rule 0” would solve a great many problems.
I get what you mean, Sposta, but I think it's good to understand that the writers of D&D aren't perfect. They're mostly people who have been playing D&D and other RPGs for decades... there's a lot of stuff that probably got left out because it seemed like such simple, common sense stuff that they didn't feel the need to spell it out. The text states that the DM is the final arbiter and the rules as written are more of a guide than unbreakable law that must be obeyed... most of your suggested rule Zero's are covered in that statement, but it doesn't get into specifics because, among people who play RPGs so frequently that they know the rules and mindsets inside and out, those specific clarifications might seem like unnecessary pedantry.
At this point, the fact of the matter is that they didn't include the details you mentioned in the PHB. Maybe they should have clarified these details sooner, but for now they have essentially two options: Reprint the PHB and include these new rules, or include these rule clarifications and suggestions in a newly printed book meant to add new options to the game.
At this point, the fact of the matter is that they didn't include the details you mentioned in the PHB. Maybe they should have clarified these details sooner, but for now they have essentially two options: Reprint the PHB and include these new rules, or include these rule clarifications and suggestions in a newly printed book meant to add new options to the game.
They just did en errata on the PHB not too long ago, which means a reprint happened. It should have been done then and there. That’s what errata and reprinting is for. Having it as an official errata to the PHB (and Basic Rules) is way better as a whole than sticking that stuff in Tasha’s for three main reasons:
As of right now, those “clarifications” are hidden behind a $30-$50 paywall in addition to the cost of the PHB. That should not be. A younger/newer player shouldn’t have to essentially double the cost of their PHB just to get the basics.
Those clarifications are not technically included in the “Core Three,” who’s is theoretically all anyone should ever need to play. So many folks who don’t purchase Tasha’s might still not be getting the memo.
Experienced players who spend $30-$50 for a new book shouldn’t find out that a significant chunk of what they paid for is permission to imagine something completely fictitious looks different from how someone else imagine it, or to change something around if it suits them.
At this point, the fact of the matter is that they didn't include the details you mentioned in the PHB. Maybe they should have clarified these details sooner, but for now they have essentially two options: Reprint the PHB and include these new rules, or include these rule clarifications and suggestions in a newly printed book meant to add new options to the game.
They just did en errata on the PHB not too long ago, which means a reprint happened. It should have been done then and there. That’s what errata and reprinting is for. Having it as an official errata to the PHB (and Basic Rules) is way better as a whole than sticking that stuff in Tasha’s for three main reasons:
As of right now, those “clarifications” are hidden behind a $30-$50 paywall in addition to the cost of the PHB. That should not be. A younger/newer player shouldn’t have to essentially double the cost of their PHB just to get the basics.
Those clarifications are not technically included in the “Core Three,” who’s is theoretically all anyone should ever need to play. So many folks who don’t purchase Tasha’s might still not be getting the memo.
Experienced players who spend $30-$50 for a new book shouldn’t find out that a significant chunk of what they paid for is permission to imagine something completely fictitious looks different from how someone else imagine it, or to change something around if it suits them.
Errata's are really not for adding pages of text to a book. They are for correcting text and mistakes.
And no sorry those "rules" are not behind a pay wall - they are only behind a pay wall for DMs who insist on following RAW - the designers are constantly saying "do your own thing" so to pretend that this is a problem for WoTC and not table specific is silly.
Frankly the PHB heavily implies all of Tasha's in the introduction and preface from Mearls. So they do indeed call it out, heck they even say D&D is based on imagination right there in the first paragraph of the Intro
Tasha's has a lot of "rules" for some simple, common sense stuff that seems really intended for first time players... That or stubborn players who insist on doing things completely by the book.
Yes. This is exactly the thing. I am offended by the idea that they felt they needed to give me permission to headcannon if something looks exactly like it’s description or not! Tehfawk?!? I have been reskinning spell effects and weapons and such in D&D longer than WotC has been publishing the darn game. I don’t need their permanent and the fact they felt it necessary to go back in a subsequent (to the PHB) publication and expressly give it, I find insulting.
I also find it deeply disturbing that it actually is necessary for other players. This is a game entirely for, of, and about imagination. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be whatever the heck anybody can imagine it to be. The fact that they somehow managed to not make that clear in the first place is an issue. And frankly, I blame AL as “Imagination Enemy #1” because the whole point of the game somehow got lost in that. I think VTTs are “I E #2“ the same way movies ruin good books.
Imagine Thorn Whip to look like a fishing Rod with a Real spooled with barbed wire for an Artificer; or the “OG” Scorpion’s “GET OVER HERE!!” for a Monk who could cast it; or like the Grapple Gun from Batman, the Animated Series for a rogue! That’s your business. It’s your character, you’re the one narrating the effects, do whatever you want. Why was that ever in question?!?
The flip side of this is (and very in keeping with the whole thread) that as a DM I do not give too figs (and I really dislike figs, so I want none of them) what the heck it says you can do in that book, or any other. If something don’t work a certain way in my world, then it don’ work like that.
When did D&D become all about “Officially Published Content” and stop being about people getting together and telling each other a story?
I've seen players' faces light up as this epiphany hit them. It may seem entirely unnecessary (and, apparently, insulting) to point out there are no limits other than their imagination, but some players do need a memo.
No limits to the spell visuals, sure.
But to their effects? RAW is apparently king.
Here is what I allow for my table:
1. Most spells that target creatures also target unattended objects. Want to use Grasping Vine (or the mentioned Thorn Whip) to catch a lying weapon from the ground? Be my guest. Want to use it to try and redirect a boulder that is going your way? Awesome!
2. Many spells that have weird constraints, lose them. Want to use Create and Destroy Water to vanish a puddle in the mud? I won't say to you that the ground is not an open container so therefore you can't do it.
3. Unified effects for some spells. Both Lightning Bolt AND Chain Lightning are able to destroy objects and light flammable materials. Just an example.
4. Creative use of battle spells. When I was reading the Sword of Truth series, one of my favorite moments was when a powerful wizard faced enemies who turned out to be completely immune to magic. After he cast a spell and realized he can't do anything direct to them, he got creative - he cast a powerful lightning bolt on a marble floor, completely destroying the stone and sending it flying towards his enemies. The razor sharp pieces slashed them to death. I specifically recalled that scene to my wizard player and told him that he would be able to do something similar if he wished. It won't be a full lightning bolt damage at my table but it can be done.
5. From another thread - I allow to ready a Bonus Action spell because it doesn't sit well with me that you can Ready a Fireball or Dimension Door but you can't ready a Misty Step.
Stuff I don't bother with:
1. Counting nonmagical arrows
2. Listing every pricey component that is used up by the spell except diamonds for resurrection. My players just have a pool of "x gold worth of costly components" which they deplete whenever they use something that requires it. Components that are not used have to be listed separately.
3. Bonus Action-Cantrip only restriction. Doesn't bother me. None of my players is a sorcerer so not too OP and it saves me time having a discussion especially when reaction spells appear.
At this point, the fact of the matter is that they didn't include the details you mentioned in the PHB. Maybe they should have clarified these details sooner, but for now they have essentially two options: Reprint the PHB and include these new rules, or include these rule clarifications and suggestions in a newly printed book meant to add new options to the game.
They just did en errata on the PHB not too long ago, which means a reprint happened. It should have been done then and there. That’s what errata and reprinting is for. Having it as an official errata to the PHB (and Basic Rules) is way better as a whole than sticking that stuff in Tasha’s for three main reasons:
As of right now, those “clarifications” are hidden behind a $30-$50 paywall in addition to the cost of the PHB. That should not be. A younger/newer player shouldn’t have to essentially double the cost of their PHB just to get the basics.
Those clarifications are not technically included in the “Core Three,” who’s is theoretically all anyone should ever need to play. So many folks who don’t purchase Tasha’s might still not be getting the memo.
Experienced players who spend $30-$50 for a new book shouldn’t find out that a significant chunk of what they paid for is permission to imagine something completely fictitious looks different from how someone else imagine it, or to change something around if it suits them.
Errata's are really not for adding pages of text to a book. They are for correcting text and mistakes.
And no sorry those "rules" are not behind a pay wall - they are only behind a pay wall for DMs who insist on following RAW - the designers are constantly saying "do your own thing" so to pretend that this is a problem for WoTC and not table specific is silly.
Frankly the PHB heavily implies all of Tasha's in the introduction and preface from Mearls. So they do indeed call it out, heck they even say D&D is based on imagination right there in the first paragraph of the Intro
I agree with this but I also hate the "DMs you can do you!" approach some times as it mostly comes up with bad rule writing and content that people want but "re-flavoring" is the suggestion.
For most stuff its fine and I do not mind doing my own thing but when they say "Just use your imagination!" for stuff like...actual exploration rules, crafting, or Psionics I just feel like they are being lazy.
They constantly make so many mistakes with things (UA's with spelling errors that go on to the final printing, in house playtesting or lack thereof, and inconsistent language or lack of proper vetting for new features) that I find its usually that they don't want to deal with things and only reluctantly add the bare minimum most of the time.
Custom Lineage is a prime example...instead of taking time to make a more robust discussion of custom races they tossed something together in 15 minutes and it shows.
People defend it as "Simple and easy to work with" which is true...but its like a thin veneer over a stinky log.
Errata's are really not for adding pages of text to a book. They are for correcting text and mistakes.
And no sorry those "rules" are not behind a pay wall - they are only behind a pay wall for DMs who insist on following RAW - the designers are constantly saying "do your own thing" so to pretend that this is a problem for WoTC and not table specific is silly.
Frankly the PHB heavily implies all of Tasha's in the introduction and preface from Mearls. So they do indeed call it out, heck they even say D&D is based on imagination right there in the first paragraph of the Intro
Why should it have required adding “pages” to explain what I covered in one sentence as “Rule # 0.1?” They could have simply added that sentence in Chapter 10 with an errata. Boom, now it’s RAW in the PHB and ain’t nobody can say nuthin’.
By the way, if it isn’t WotC’s problem to solve, then why are they publishing stuff to solve it...?
And if it was as clear as you say, then why did pangurjan’s players find it such an epiphany? This isn’t Schrödinger's Cat, it can’t be both already clearly stated and completely new information at the same time.
“You have the right to be creative now!”
Tasha's has a lot of "rules" for some simple, common sense stuff that seems really intended for first time players... That or stubborn players who insist on doing things completely by the book.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Rules we don't use:
ID by osmosis. If you want to know it, cast Identify or taste it (potions).
Anything from Tasha's
Feats
Money weight
Rules we do use:
Crit hits do max damage possible on the regular dice and roll the bonus dice. SO tired of seeing 2-4 point "crits"
If you drop your weapon on the ground or are disarmed, it takes your action to pick it up. Without this rule disarming becomes meaningless.
If you are prone it takes either your action or all of your movement to stand up.
Hex grids for combat.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Primarily, we go by RaW, and Homebrew anything that doesn't fit, with a few noted rules we ignore.
Encumbrance isn't addressed until someone is found to be hauling around a dozen great axes or something foolish.
As with many others, no automatic Identify of items by sleeping with them, use the spell or have someone else use it for you.
Specific house rules we've homebrewed around:
Crits get the regular roll and a max roll on the bonus dice
Potions are an action unless noted (Homebrewed small Healing potions were made that were a bonus action to swig)
Spell Scrolls - One DM rules anyone who can cast can read them, I rule that if you use the same casting modifier you can try with a 13 DC Arcana check (Wisdom, Charisma or Intelligence)
In my campaign the Wizard wanted some Cleric-y stuff so I homebrewed some buffs that fed off Arcane energies instead of Divine, Shield of Faith became of Arcane and Bless turned into Arcane Infusion, I think.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This thread made me aware of just how much homebrew we have in our campaign. I am going to start making a log of stuff to see how long the list becomes.
However, off the top of my head I can start with:
Don't use Flanking or encumbrance
We allow potions to be consumed as a bonus action
But there are many more
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
I'm excited to see it if you feel compelled to share!
None, the moon druid usually tanks.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Yes. This is exactly the thing. I am offended by the idea that they felt they needed to give me permission to headcannon if something looks exactly like it’s description or not! Tehfawk?!? I have been reskinning spell effects and weapons and such in D&D longer than WotC has been publishing the darn game. I don’t need their permanent and the fact they felt it necessary to go back in a subsequent (to the PHB) publication and expressly give it, I find insulting.
I also find it deeply disturbing that it actually is necessary for other players. This is a game entirely for, of, and about imagination. That’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be whatever the heck anybody can imagine it to be. The fact that they somehow managed to not make that clear in the first place is an issue. And frankly, I blame AL as “Imagination Enemy #1” because the whole point of the game somehow got lost in that. I think VTTs are “I E #2“ the same way movies ruin good books.
Imagine Thorn Whip to look like a fishing Rod with a Real spooled with barbed wire for an Artificer; or the “OG” Scorpion’s “GET OVER HERE!!” for a Monk who could cast it; or like the Grapple Gun from Batman, the Animated Series for a rogue! That’s your business. It’s your character, you’re the one narrating the effects, do whatever you want. Why was that ever in question?!?
The flip side of this is (and very in keeping with the whole thread) that as a DM I do not give too figs (and I really dislike figs, so I want none of them) what the heck it says you can do in that book, or any other. If something don’t work a certain way in my world, then it don’ work like that.
When did D&D become all about “Officially Published Content” and stop being about people getting together and telling each other a story?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I've seen players' faces light up as this epiphany hit them. It may seem entirely unnecessary (and, apparently, insulting) to point out there are no limits other than their imagination, but some players do need a memo.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rules I don’t play with: currency, resurrection magic.
Rules I do play with: being flanked gives -2 to AC.
I wouldn't put this entirely on WotC. It seems obvious to us, but a lot of people who are unaccustomed to the freedom of D&D need more specifics than "use your imagination." Some people live in a world where they do this so rarely that they're not sure how to proceed. In addition, there's a line where imagination must defer to the rules. Exactly where that line is can be tricky and vary widely between tables, so I don't mind examples that can provide guidelines for newer players (and perhaps some DMs as well).
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I like this approach to flanking better than advantage.
I don't think we've struck any rules from use, but rules that we do use:
That’s my point, it shouldn’t have required an epiphany. This should have been made clear in the Basic Rules, the SRD, and the PHB. I never noticed that it wasn’t explicitly stated because it never occurred to me to look for it, and it never occurred to me that they wouldn’t have put it there either.
That’s precisely why it falls on WotC to make it clear that anyone should feel absolutely free to change the cosmetics of anything they want to. Cosmetic reskins affect absolutely nothing mechanically and shouldn’t have any adverse interactions with the rules. As long as nothing is affected mechanically, change whatever.
Right in the intro there should have been the most Innate rule of the game: Rule 0, Use Your Common Sense.
0.0. Regardless of what the rules say, the DM has the final word for how things work for that game.
0.1. Reskin anything in the game you want to look however you want as long as it doesn’t affect anything mechanically.
0.2. Don’t try to tell other players what they should or shouldn’t do. Play your character and let them play theirs.
0.3. Have fun.
That right there would have resolved so many of the issues people bring to these forums. Every “my players argue with me....” and “my DM says “X,” but....” “SHADDAP! Rule #0.0.”
A ton of the stuff in Tasha’s is all covered in #0.1.
The vast majority of disputes between players “SHADDAP! Rule #0.2.”
And all of those threads by DMs wondering if they should feel guilty about wanting to bail because of burnout, or by players wondering if it’s rude to duck in a game they don’t like. “SHADAP! Rule #0.3.”
Tell me that wouldn’t have been a good thing for everyone. Being able to point to “Rule 0” would solve a great many problems.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I get what you mean, Sposta, but I think it's good to understand that the writers of D&D aren't perfect. They're mostly people who have been playing D&D and other RPGs for decades... there's a lot of stuff that probably got left out because it seemed like such simple, common sense stuff that they didn't feel the need to spell it out. The text states that the DM is the final arbiter and the rules as written are more of a guide than unbreakable law that must be obeyed... most of your suggested rule Zero's are covered in that statement, but it doesn't get into specifics because, among people who play RPGs so frequently that they know the rules and mindsets inside and out, those specific clarifications might seem like unnecessary pedantry.
At this point, the fact of the matter is that they didn't include the details you mentioned in the PHB. Maybe they should have clarified these details sooner, but for now they have essentially two options: Reprint the PHB and include these new rules, or include these rule clarifications and suggestions in a newly printed book meant to add new options to the game.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
They just did en errata on the PHB not too long ago, which means a reprint happened. It should have been done then and there. That’s what errata and reprinting is for. Having it as an official errata to the PHB (and Basic Rules) is way better as a whole than sticking that stuff in Tasha’s for three main reasons:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Errata's are really not for adding pages of text to a book. They are for correcting text and mistakes.
And no sorry those "rules" are not behind a pay wall - they are only behind a pay wall for DMs who insist on following RAW - the designers are constantly saying "do your own thing" so to pretend that this is a problem for WoTC and not table specific is silly.
Frankly the PHB heavily implies all of Tasha's in the introduction and preface from Mearls. So they do indeed call it out, heck they even say D&D is based on imagination right there in the first paragraph of the Intro
No limits to the spell visuals, sure.
But to their effects? RAW is apparently king.
Here is what I allow for my table:
1. Most spells that target creatures also target unattended objects. Want to use Grasping Vine (or the mentioned Thorn Whip) to catch a lying weapon from the ground? Be my guest. Want to use it to try and redirect a boulder that is going your way? Awesome!
2. Many spells that have weird constraints, lose them. Want to use Create and Destroy Water to vanish a puddle in the mud? I won't say to you that the ground is not an open container so therefore you can't do it.
3. Unified effects for some spells. Both Lightning Bolt AND Chain Lightning are able to destroy objects and light flammable materials. Just an example.
4. Creative use of battle spells. When I was reading the Sword of Truth series, one of my favorite moments was when a powerful wizard faced enemies who turned out to be completely immune to magic. After he cast a spell and realized he can't do anything direct to them, he got creative - he cast a powerful lightning bolt on a marble floor, completely destroying the stone and sending it flying towards his enemies. The razor sharp pieces slashed them to death. I specifically recalled that scene to my wizard player and told him that he would be able to do something similar if he wished. It won't be a full lightning bolt damage at my table but it can be done.
5. From another thread - I allow to ready a Bonus Action spell because it doesn't sit well with me that you can Ready a Fireball or Dimension Door but you can't ready a Misty Step.
Stuff I don't bother with:
1. Counting nonmagical arrows
2. Listing every pricey component that is used up by the spell except diamonds for resurrection. My players just have a pool of "x gold worth of costly components" which they deplete whenever they use something that requires it. Components that are not used have to be listed separately.
3. Bonus Action-Cantrip only restriction. Doesn't bother me. None of my players is a sorcerer so not too OP and it saves me time having a discussion especially when reaction spells appear.
I agree with this but I also hate the "DMs you can do you!" approach some times as it mostly comes up with bad rule writing and content that people want but "re-flavoring" is the suggestion.
For most stuff its fine and I do not mind doing my own thing but when they say "Just use your imagination!" for stuff like...actual exploration rules, crafting, or Psionics I just feel like they are being lazy.
They constantly make so many mistakes with things (UA's with spelling errors that go on to the final printing, in house playtesting or lack thereof, and inconsistent language or lack of proper vetting for new features) that I find its usually that they don't want to deal with things and only reluctantly add the bare minimum most of the time.
Custom Lineage is a prime example...instead of taking time to make a more robust discussion of custom races they tossed something together in 15 minutes and it shows.
People defend it as "Simple and easy to work with" which is true...but its like a thin veneer over a stinky log.
Why should it have required adding “pages” to explain what I covered in one sentence as “Rule # 0.1?” They could have simply added that sentence in Chapter 10 with an errata. Boom, now it’s RAW in the PHB and ain’t nobody can say nuthin’.
By the way, if it isn’t WotC’s problem to solve, then why are they publishing stuff to solve it...?
And if it was as clear as you say, then why did pangurjan’s players find it such an epiphany? This isn’t Schrödinger's Cat, it can’t be both already clearly stated and completely new information at the same time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting