I just don’t associate with such clearly delusional people. Solves that problem right quick. Someone starts on on any of that nonsense and I realize I don’t need to be in that conversation anymore. (It’s like if you see someone in filthy rags standing on an overturned shopping cart on the street corner shouting about how god sends them visions through the radio static about the end being nigh. Just don’t make eye contact, and keep on moving.) This is D&D. I do what I want. Tell me I can’t “Eldritch Playing Cards,” I say cash me outside. 🤷♂️
Archery Fighting style doesn't work with throwing things but Crossbow Expert does.
As written, appears 100% true. Heck, crossbow expert works with spells, if for some reason you really want to use eldritch blast at 5' from a foe.
But don't forget Archery fighting style works with Darts as they are only a ranged weapon which is the requirement needed, that stated Sharpshooter feat also works with Darts and where Crossbow Expert works with any ranged attack so does the Gunner Feat and you get a +1 DEX so those Wizards and Sorcerers that cannot use a Hand crossbow do not lose out on other parts of the feat Bonus for Firearms Proficiency if they are in the game.
Custom lineage, while I personally have no problem with it, I can see why people would dislike it. (Though I do like the flexibility given to racial asis and proficiencies a lot more.)
PB based features though, I really don't see why these are a problem? I don't see a problem with having a class or subclass feature that scales up in uses with you as you level and don't see why that would inherently be a bad thing. Do you think it's too forgiving for multiclassing or something?
PB based features though, I really don't see why these are a problem? I don't see a problem with having a class or subclass feature that scales up in uses with you as you level and don't see why that would inherently be a bad thing. Do you think it's too forgiving for multiclassing or something?
Class features have always gone up as you level, like Rage, Sneak Attack, Sorcery Points, Ki, Extra Attacks, Favored Enemy, Spell Slots, etc. But they scale up as you level “in that class.” Class/subclass featurea should never be able to increase by completely ignoring that class and leveling a different one instead. Especially not core subclass feature.
Please elaborate. Do you find fault with the character customization features? the subclasses? the group patrons? the spells and magic items? Session zero? Sidekicks? Supernatural Regions and Phenomena? Puzzles?
Because most people just complain about the character customization features...and that is nowhere close to 90% of the book. So please elaborate.
The lineage system is the worst thing to ever happen to D&D. PB should never have been employed as a metric for subclass features. (Race/Feats, sure. Class/Subclass? Absolutely not.) They should be ashamed of what they did to Psionics. Many of the magic items and feats were ripped off from popular homebrews. The class feature options were nerfed to high hell. The session Zero stuff, Spell customizations, Puzzles, and Group Patrons were common sense that shouldn’t have needed printing and the fact they felt it did should be a clue to how effed up it is. The art was mediocre, and the flavor text they gave for Tasha made her sound like a whiny teenager instead of a supreme sorcerer. Yeah, I mean almost the entire book. Crawford should be sacked for that travesty. ‘Nuff said?
Ok you might think that a lot of this stuff is common sense that doesn’t need printing, last week I let my 15yo nephew a brand new DM read my copy of tashas cauldron. All of that he found fascinating and got him asking questions and thinking.
Tashas like Xanathars is a resource book to build on the core. Session zero and spell customization, group patrons and puzzles, to someone brand new to DMing this kind of info is golden. It sparks new ideas and potentials. You could argue most of the DMG isn’t needed because those of us who have been playing ttrpgs for years don’t need a section on campaign or world building, we don’t need to learn about the different planes because we already know. It is all information that needed to be stated.
Well then that’s just all the more reason it should have been in the actual DMG in the first place. Isn’t it?
But honestly, who needs to be told they can flavor their Eldritch Blast like Gambit’s exploding playing cards? Why would that even be a thing that actually needs to be explicitly stated? This is a game in which the most iconic monster is an insane, floating meatball with magic rays that shoot out of its myriad eyestalks and they reproduce by having nightmares about themselves. A strict adherence to a purely fluff description of anything does not compute. 🤷♂️ That’s why I say it should be common sense. It has little to do with how long I’ve been playing and everything to do with if someone told me I wasn’t allowed to reskin a spell’s effect like that I’d look at them like they just grew a second head. That would be like someone saying it’s against the rules to pour chocolate milk on my corn flakes and eat them for dessert. Or someone saying it’s against the rules to put salt and pepper on my french fries. Or that it’s against the rules to parade lace my kicks. What? The idea of that is so genuinely baffling I cannot take it seriously. Who needs permission to use their imagination? Especially when playing a game that requires imagination.
There are a wackton of examples of a powerful patron looking after a ragtag group of heroes. Thor in SG1, Gandalf to a certain extent, Splinter and his Turtles, Xavier and the X-Men…. It needed to be stated that the party of pseudomedieval superheroes can have a Xavier? Really?
You can go to Walmart and get a stack of puzzle books to rip ideas from for D&D. That needed a section in a D&D book? Especially when half the challenges in any RPG video game are some form of puzzle or other. Even just figuring out how to get from “here” to “there” is a puzzle sometimes. Folks needed permission for that? I don’t get it.
D&D is “make believe” for children ages 8+, and there are rules so nobody has to argue about who shot first. (Nu-uh! I shot you first! No way, I shot first!) Every one of us played make believe as kids. Do people just forget how that they need or explained in a book? Say it ain’t so.
But even if I’m wrong and all of that that did need to be stated, the mechanical portions of Tasha’s are my genuine gripe, so all of Chapter 1 and most of chapter 3. That’s still most of the book. I was asked to elaborate and so I did. The thread asked what we think his worst call was. That’s my answer. That’s what I think his worst call has been to date. Agree, disagree, that’s up to you. (It’s still a free country.) But that’s my opinion. (Oh yeah, and the art is still mediocre and the fluff text for Tasha is still insulting.)
With that reasoning, there really is no need for any book containing anything but just the mechanical aspect of the game. OF course, if that was the case, certain people would probably complain about things anyway.
There is no "need" for anything in D&D. There is no "need" for prewritten adventures or fluff pieces or flavor text describing how spells work, yet there is and it helps people enjoy the game. If you'd rather buy puzzle books from walmart, do it. But you not liking something is not the same as it being bad.
Proficiency Bonus scaling is an alternative to having a fixed number of uses for a feature, or a number of uses based on ability scores. That's a whole separate thing from features that get a little bit better each time you level up, like Ki Points.
Ability score modifiers can range from -1 to +5 at character creation, which makes it difficult to balance the power of features that are supposed to have a big impact. Proficiency bonus is predictable, has a sensible minimum built into it already, progresses smoothly even if players want to take 3 feats in a row, and plays nicely with MAD classes or multiclass combos. I don't think it makes sense for every feature (ability scores make a lot more sense for numerical bonuses imo) but it does have a lot of benefits that the designers weren't taking advantage of before.
The other alternative is having a fixed number of uses, and playtest feedback showed that just doesn't resonate with players. Reading that you can use a feature twice per short rest feels arbitrary. Why twice and not thrice? Tying it to PB gives it a narrative hook with your character's progression.
It seems like a fine addition to me honestly. And it's not like everything is now PB tied either. Take the new favored foe for ranger, sure you get more uses based on proficiency bonus. But for the damage to scale up you still have to level ranger, otherwise it will stay at 1d4. So sure my rogue could say dip one level into ranger and pick up this ability, but it's not going to be as good as a full fledged ranger of the same level because even if the number of uses are the same, the power of it is not.
Wails from the grave can be used a number of times equal to proficiency bonus yes, but unless you're doing deep into rogue your sneak attack dice aren't going to be very numerous.
Some like writhing tide for swarmkeeper require you to go deep into the class anyway to get them and not just a level or two dip for a quick cheese multiclass.
Please elaborate. Do you find fault with the character customization features? the subclasses? the group patrons? the spells and magic items? Session zero? Sidekicks? Supernatural Regions and Phenomena? Puzzles?
Because most people just complain about the character customization features...and that is nowhere close to 90% of the book. So please elaborate.
The lineage system is the worst thing to ever happen to D&D. PB should never have been employed as a metric for subclass features. (Race/Feats, sure. Class/Subclass? Absolutely not.) They should be ashamed of what they did to Psionics. Many of the magic items and feats were ripped off from popular homebrews. The class feature options were nerfed to high hell. The session Zero stuff, Spell customizations, Puzzles, and Group Patrons were common sense that shouldn’t have needed printing and the fact they felt it did should be a clue to how effed up it is. The art was mediocre, and the flavor text they gave for Tasha made her sound like a whiny teenager instead of a supreme sorcerer. Yeah, I mean almost the entire book. Crawford should be sacked for that travesty. ‘Nuff said?
Ok you might think that a lot of this stuff is common sense that doesn’t need printing, last week I let my 15yo nephew a brand new DM read my copy of tashas cauldron. All of that he found fascinating and got him asking questions and thinking.
Tashas like Xanathars is a resource book to build on the core. Session zero and spell customization, group patrons and puzzles, to someone brand new to DMing this kind of info is golden. It sparks new ideas and potentials. You could argue most of the DMG isn’t needed because those of us who have been playing ttrpgs for years don’t need a section on campaign or world building, we don’t need to learn about the different planes because we already know. It is all information that needed to be stated.
Well then that’s just all the more reason it should have been in the actual DMG in the first place. Isn’t it?
But honestly, who needs to be told they can flavor their Eldritch Blast like Gambit’s exploding playing cards? Why would that even be a thing that actually needs to be explicitly stated? This is a game in which the most iconic monster is an insane, floating meatball with magic rays that shoot out of its myriad eyestalks and they reproduce by having nightmares about themselves. A strict adherence to a purely fluff description of anything does not compute. 🤷♂️ That’s why I say it should be common sense. It has little to do with how long I’ve been playing and everything to do with if someone told me I wasn’t allowed to reskin a spell’s effect like that I’d look at them like they just grew a second head. That would be like someone saying it’s against the rules to pour chocolate milk on my corn flakes and eat them for dessert. Or someone saying it’s against the rules to put salt and pepper on my french fries. Or that it’s against the rules to parade lace my kicks. What? The idea of that is so genuinely baffling I cannot take it seriously. Who needs permission to use their imagination? Especially when playing a game that requires imagination.
There are a wackton of examples of a powerful patron looking after a ragtag group of heroes. Thor in SG1, Gandalf to a certain extent, Splinter and his Turtles, Xavier and the X-Men…. It needed to be stated that the party of pseudomedieval superheroes can have a Xavier? Really?
You can go to Walmart and get a stack of puzzle books to rip ideas from for D&D. That needed a section in a D&D book? Especially when half the challenges in any RPG video game are some form of puzzle or other. Even just figuring out how to get from “here” to “there” is a puzzle sometimes. Folks needed permission for that? I don’t get it.
D&D is “make believe” for children ages 8+, and there are rules so nobody has to argue about who shot first. (Nu-uh! I shot you first! No way, I shot first!) Every one of us played make believe as kids. Do people just forget how that they need or explained in a book? Say it ain’t so.
But even if I’m wrong and all of that that did need to be stated, the mechanical portions of Tasha’s are my genuine gripe, so all of Chapter 1 and most of chapter 3. That’s still most of the book. I was asked to elaborate and so I did. The thread asked what we think his worst call was. That’s my answer. That’s what I think his worst call has been to date. Agree, disagree, that’s up to you. (It’s still a free country.) But that’s my opinion. (Oh yeah, and the art is still mediocre and the fluff text for Tasha is still insulting.)
With that reasoning, there really is no need for any book containing anything but just the mechanical aspect of the game. OF course, if that was the case, certain people would probably complain about things anyway.
There is no "need" for anything in D&D. There is no "need" for prewritten adventures or fluff pieces or flavor text describing how spells work, yet there is and it helps people enjoy the game. If you'd rather buy puzzle books from walmart, do it. But you not liking something is not the same as it being bad.
I didn’t say it was “bad,” I said it was unnecessary. You know what, I’m done with this part of the conversation. MY OPINION is that’s Tasha’s Cauldron of Toilet Water was so bad that Crawford should be fired. You don’t like my opinion, congrats. But stop arguing against my opinion because it won’t change.
Proficiency Bonus scaling is an alternative to having a fixed number of uses for a feature, or a number of uses based on ability scores. That's a whole separate thing from features that get a little bit better each time you level up, like Ki Points.
Ability score modifiers can range from -1 to +5 at character creation, which makes it difficult to balance the power of features that are supposed to have a big impact. Proficiency bonus is predictable, has a sensible minimum built into it already, progresses smoothly even if players want to take 3 feats in a row, and plays nicely with MAD classes or multiclass combos. I don't think it makes sense for every feature (ability scores make a lot more sense for numerical bonuses imo) but it does have a lot of benefits that the designers weren't taking advantage of before.
The other alternative is having a fixed number of uses, and playtest feedback showed that just doesn't resonate with players. Reading that you can use a feature twice per short rest feels arbitrary. Why twice and not thrice? Tying it to PB gives it a narrative hook with your character's progression.
That fact that someone can take a dip into another class and then completely ignore it, but that dip class’ features continue to improve is un-D&D. Class features should only increase with either class progression, or direct investment on the part of the player through ASIs. Everything you just listed as “good” points about it are exactly why it should never have happened. They are, in my opinion, all bad points and the exact reasons why I am opposed to it.
Ki doesn’t get better each time you level up. Ki only gets better exact time you level up as a Monk. You can’t take three levels in Monk and then completely ignore it and still get more Ki. Your Martial Arts die won’t get bigger by ignoring Monk. It stays static. You can’t take a dip into Sorcerer and continue getting more Sorcery points or Metamagic even though you keep leveling up as a Bard. You cannot dip into Rogue and continue to accrue Sneak Attack dice by ignoring Rogue to level up as a Monk. It doesn’t work that way.
But by tying features to PB, that’s exactly what can happen, and it shouldn’t. Racial features scaling with PB? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Feats improving with PB? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Class or Subclass features scaling with PB? Absolutely not, should never have happened.
Sposta, the key to that entire book was power creep, besides satisfying some vocal activists. Players always complain that their chars need more, more, more.
How many new class features, including stuff that scales with Prof Bonus, were straight up char buffs without any tradeoff required by the player? Anything in Tasha's is not allowed at my table, for many of the reasons you detailed. I am not even going to begin to talk about Twilight Cleric.
Agreed. I banned almost everything but the class feature options (such as they are), feats, spells (other than Dream the blue DM’s nightmare, that ****er’s right out) and some of the magic items. Almost every subclass is banned at my table, as is the lineage system.
And as to “satisfying vocal activists,” they completely pissed this vocal activist off with the way they corn-holed the bejeepers outta Psionics this edition. Crawford should be shit-canned just for that alone.
Jeremy Crawford is the Matt Ward of D&D. He should be forced to walk door-by-door and buy back every copy of Tasha’s Midden out of his own pocket with a personalized apology to every D&D player living or dead.
See, I tried to just leave my 2cp that Tasha’s was his worst call. Youse all had ta keep pokin’ the bear.
No one is required to reply to any post in any thread in any forum.
Regarding that, there really isn't any new discussion this time that wasn't had last time. If you don't agree with his calls, don't use them, but it's interesting to see the intent behind someone who is an active participant in the development of the game. This line in this post isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's a generic catch all statement.
Please elaborate. Do you find fault with the character customization features? the subclasses? the group patrons? the spells and magic items? Session zero? Sidekicks? Supernatural Regions and Phenomena? Puzzles?
Because most people just complain about the character customization features...and that is nowhere close to 90% of the book. So please elaborate.
The lineage system is the worst thing to ever happen to D&D. PB should never have been employed as a metric for subclass features. (Race/Feats, sure. Class/Subclass? Absolutely not.) They should be ashamed of what they did to Psionics. Many of the magic items and feats were ripped off from popular homebrews. The class feature options were nerfed to high hell. The session Zero stuff, Spell customizations, Puzzles, and Group Patrons were common sense that shouldn’t have needed printing and the fact they felt it did should be a clue to how effed up it is. The art was mediocre, and the flavor text they gave for Tasha made her sound like a whiny teenager instead of a supreme sorcerer. Yeah, I mean almost the entire book. Crawford should be sacked for that travesty. ‘Nuff said?
Ok you might think that a lot of this stuff is common sense that doesn’t need printing, last week I let my 15yo nephew a brand new DM read my copy of tashas cauldron. All of that he found fascinating and got him asking questions and thinking.
Tashas like Xanathars is a resource book to build on the core. Session zero and spell customization, group patrons and puzzles, to someone brand new to DMing this kind of info is golden. It sparks new ideas and potentials. You could argue most of the DMG isn’t needed because those of us who have been playing ttrpgs for years don’t need a section on campaign or world building, we don’t need to learn about the different planes because we already know. It is all information that needed to be stated.
Well then that’s just all the more reason it should have been in the actual DMG in the first place. Isn’t it?
But honestly, who needs to be told they can flavor their Eldritch Blast like Gambit’s exploding playing cards? Why would that even be a thing that actually needs to be explicitly stated? This is a game in which the most iconic monster is an insane, floating meatball with magic rays that shoot out of its myriad eyestalks and they reproduce by having nightmares about themselves. A strict adherence to a purely fluff description of anything does not compute. 🤷♂️ That’s why I say it should be common sense. It has little to do with how long I’ve been playing and everything to do with if someone told me I wasn’t allowed to reskin a spell’s effect like that I’d look at them like they just grew a second head. That would be like someone saying it’s against the rules to pour chocolate milk on my corn flakes and eat them for dessert. Or someone saying it’s against the rules to put salt and pepper on my french fries. Or that it’s against the rules to parade lace my kicks. What? The idea of that is so genuinely baffling I cannot take it seriously. Who needs permission to use their imagination? Especially when playing a game that requires imagination.
There are a wackton of examples of a powerful patron looking after a ragtag group of heroes. Thor in SG1, Gandalf to a certain extent, Splinter and his Turtles, Xavier and the X-Men…. It needed to be stated that the party of pseudomedieval superheroes can have a Xavier? Really?
You can go to Walmart and get a stack of puzzle books to rip ideas from for D&D. That needed a section in a D&D book? Especially when half the challenges in any RPG video game are some form of puzzle or other. Even just figuring out how to get from “here” to “there” is a puzzle sometimes. Folks needed permission for that? I don’t get it.
D&D is “make believe” for children ages 8+, and there are rules so nobody has to argue about who shot first. (Nu-uh! I shot you first! No way, I shot first!) Every one of us played make believe as kids. Do people just forget how that they need or explained in a book? Say it ain’t so.
But even if I’m wrong and all of that that did need to be stated, the mechanical portions of Tasha’s are my genuine gripe, so all of Chapter 1 and most of chapter 3. That’s still most of the book. I was asked to elaborate and so I did. The thread asked what we think his worst call was. That’s my answer. That’s what I think his worst call has been to date. Agree, disagree, that’s up to you. (It’s still a free country.) But that’s my opinion. (Oh yeah, and the art is still mediocre and the fluff text for Tasha is still insulting.)
With that reasoning, there really is no need for any book containing anything but just the mechanical aspect of the game. OF course, if that was the case, certain people would probably complain about things anyway.
There is no "need" for anything in D&D. There is no "need" for prewritten adventures or fluff pieces or flavor text describing how spells work, yet there is and it helps people enjoy the game. If you'd rather buy puzzle books from walmart, do it. But you not liking something is not the same as it being bad.
I didn’t say it was “bad,” I said it was unnecessary. You know what, I’m done with this part of the conversation. MY OPINION is that’s Tasha’s Cauldron of Toilet Water was so bad that Crawford should be fired. You don’t like my opinion, congrats. But stop arguing against my opinion because it won’t change.
Well, you did, you are and you continue to do.
But you are right in that you have your opinion but once again, you having an opinion doesn't mean that you are right.
Your right that have an opinion doesn't make you right but it also doesn't make you wrong at least in this instance. Which means that the opinion you seem to have, that being Tasha's was good, is not any more correct than sposta's. The only fact regarding whether or not Tasha's was good or not is that it was divisive. And arguing over it with stranger serves no purpose because the argument is based on opinions and preferences something that is damn near impossible to win an argument with
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
See, I tried to just leave my 2cp that Tasha’s was his worst call. Youse all had ta keep pokin’ the bear.
I would be very interested to see what the results of this poll would be if it was run again in, say, November, after the release of the new books. Everything I am reading says that "opinions may change" on what is the worst move call. When a designer says "you can get further in the level 1-8 module with a smile than a sword", well, flags go up.
Social skills actually mattering... the horror!!!! (Kidding aside, when written well, there is rather more to it than just a few good persuasion rolls. For one thing, figuring out who the right people to persuade are).
Plenty complaints about D&D being all about combat and the other two pillars not getting enough attention too. If a module is presented as trying to fix that, I'm at the very least going to check it out rather than see it as a cause for alarm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
See, I tried to just leave my 2cp that Tasha’s was his worst call. Youse all had ta keep pokin’ the bear.
I would be very interested to see what the results of this poll would be if it was run again in, say, November, after the release of the new books. Everything I am reading says that "opinions may change" on what is the worst move call. When a designer says "you can get further in the level 1-8 module with a smile than a sword", well, flags go up.
Social skills actually mattering... the horror!!!! (Kidding aside, when written well, there is rather more to it than just a few good persuasion rolls. For one thing, figuring out who the right people to persuade are).
Why go from level 1-8 when all you need is your social skills? Why not simply say "the chars are level 5 with a Prof Bonus of +3, for the entire module". 90% to 95% of all subclass features in the game are designed around combat. D&D IS a combat oriented game. It is not called Discussions and Diversions.
Neither is it called "Dropkicks and Decapitacions". You are also wrong on the subclass features, but I assume you meant it as a hyperbole.
Jeremy Crawford has a small problem. He's not very good at off-the-cuff observations. He tends not to think all that hard before he answers. That's why when someone asks about a D&D game rule, he talks about some homebrew that he uses in his games. Sometimes he changes his mind. One person asks, he gives an answer, another asks the same or similar question and they get a different answer. He's capable of making mistakes. There's quite a few rules out there, even in just the core books, and people ask him about options from other books. He didn't help write those. How would he know? Your guess is as good as his.
The thing to keep in mind is that there were two people who helped write the core rules. If you really need to know something about the core rules ask Jeremy, and Mike Mearls. If they both say the same thing, you're probably got a winner.
He means well. He seems like a nice guy. He is willing to hang around in Twitter and answer things after all. He spends his free time trying to help people with something he does for a living.
That fact that someone can take a dip into another class and then completely ignore it, but that dip class’ features continue to improve is un-D&D. Class features should only increase with either class progression, or direct investment on the part of the player through ASIs.
ASI-based features suffer from the exact same thing you're complaining about. I can take 1 level in Light Cleric and keep improving Warding Flare through ASIs gained from levels in other classes. The idea that ASIs are ok because they require making a "direct investment" the player was going to make anyways is completely arbitrary.
See, I tried to just leave my 2cp that Tasha’s was his worst call. Youse all had ta keep pokin’ the bear.
I would be very interested to see what the results of this poll would be if it was run again in, say, November, after the release of the new books. Everything I am reading says that "opinions may change" on what is the worst move call. When a designer says "you can get further in the level 1-8 module with a smile than a sword", well, flags go up.
Social skills actually mattering... the horror!!!! (Kidding aside, when written well, there is rather more to it than just a few good persuasion rolls. For one thing, figuring out who the right people to persuade are).
Why go from level 1-8 when all you need is your social skills? Why not simply say "the chars are level 5 with a Prof Bonus of +3, for the entire module". 90% to 95% of all subclass features in the game are designed around combat. D&D IS a combat oriented game. It is not called Discussions and Diversions.
Neither is it called "Dropkicks and Decapitacions". You are also wrong on the subclass features, but I assume you meant it as a hyperbole.
90% is about right for subclass features, let alone class features when you look at all classes.
And most bards/bard subclasses? Or they just lower class to you?
Well, lets see.
Let's. Because your math is waaay off. :)
Bardic Inspiration: 2 of the 3 uses are combat based.
Only the attack roll is inherently tied to combat. The other two can be used in any situation.
Song of Rest: HP related, and HP only used in combat.
This is objectively false. You can lose hit points for a number of reasons, combat is just one of them. The actual ability of Song of Rest can only be used outside of combat so it's also not combat related.
Countercharm: Half of the uses are typically combat.
"Typically" combat? Perhaps, but that means that at least the other half isn't combat. :)
Spellcasting: Not going count how many spells are combat based. But the vast majority. Anything HP related automatically falls in that category.
Again, you are completely wrong when you say that anything HP-related is automatically combat. That is simply not how the game works. And the bard has comparetively few pure damage spells. The fact that something can be used in both combat and for other pillars doesn't mean that it's "automatically combat".
You want to have a look at Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, and Cleric features? Or the various subclasses?
We could, but I think I've shown that you are wrong already. I'm more curious as to why you chose to ignore the Bard's most iconic ability, Jack of all Trades. Any particular reason why you chose to ignore this inherently non-combat ability?
Yeah, 90% of the games features are indeed combat based.
Nice moving of the goalposts. The original claim was " 90% to 95% of all subclass features in the game are designed around combat", not "90% of the games features are indeed combat based." Quite the difference.
But let's work out the maths and see if you are correct, just using the example in this thread. The Bard has the following base class abilities (ignoring ASIs and number of spell levels as well as subclass features); Spellcasting, Bardic Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Song of Rest, Expertise, Font of Inspiration, Countercharm, Magical Secrets and Superior Inspiration. I'm counting the features that just get improved (like the bardic inspiration die) and those you get multiple times (like magical secrets) just once, for simplicitiy's sake. That's a total of 9 class features but some of them have multiple areas of use so the total will be more than that.
To keep this nice and easy I will count spellcasting as having half combat and half non-combat spells (it's really not, for example, only three of seven 9th level bard spells deal damage). That's one each for combat vs non-combat.
Bardic Inspiration has, as mentioned, only one use that is inherently combat-oriented (although on could easily argue that you can use attack rolls outside of combat, like in a friendly game of darts or when trying to break down a door) so that's two more for non-combat, one for combat.
JOAT is a non-combat ability that can arguably have some uses in combat but since we didn't give attack rolls out-of-combat use we won't give JOAT in-combat use.
Song of rest is an ability that you must use outside of combat so that one is fairly obvious.
Expertise is also an out of combat ability and so is Font of Inspiration. Countercharm will, as per your own words, be split half-ways so that's one each for combat vs non-combat.
Magical Secrets will, since it's basically spellcasting, also be given a half-way split.
Superior Inspiration happens when you roll Initiative and even though Initiative can be used for other things, like chase scenes and so on, I'm just going to give this one to the combat side anyways.
For those keeping scores at home that means that "combat" has a total of 5 points, out of combat has 9 points. I haven't got a calculator on me but I'm pretty sure that 5 is less than 9 and that 5 isn't "90% to 95%" of the total number.
And yes, of course certain classes and subclasses will have more abilities focusing on combat, because those are the combat-oriented classes and subclasses, but even the Champion gets one out of five subclass features (that's 20% for those who count, or care) that has out of combat use. So claiming that "90% to 95% of all subclass features in the game are designed around combat" is simply wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just don’t associate with such clearly delusional people. Solves that problem right quick. Someone starts on on any of that nonsense and I realize I don’t need to be in that conversation anymore. (It’s like if you see someone in filthy rags standing on an overturned shopping cart on the street corner shouting about how god sends them visions through the radio static about the end being nigh. Just don’t make eye contact, and keep on moving.) This is D&D. I do what I want. Tell me I can’t “Eldritch Playing Cards,” I say cash me outside. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But don't forget Archery fighting style works with Darts as they are only a ranged weapon which is the requirement needed, that stated Sharpshooter feat also works with Darts and where Crossbow Expert works with any ranged attack so does the Gunner Feat and you get a +1 DEX so those Wizards and Sorcerers that cannot use a Hand crossbow do not lose out on other parts of the feat Bonus for Firearms Proficiency if they are in the game.
Custom lineage, while I personally have no problem with it, I can see why people would dislike it. (Though I do like the flexibility given to racial asis and proficiencies a lot more.)
PB based features though, I really don't see why these are a problem? I don't see a problem with having a class or subclass feature that scales up in uses with you as you level and don't see why that would inherently be a bad thing. Do you think it's too forgiving for multiclassing or something?
Class features have always gone up as you level, like Rage, Sneak Attack, Sorcery Points, Ki, Extra Attacks, Favored Enemy, Spell Slots, etc. But they scale up as you level “in that class.” Class/subclass featurea should never be able to increase by completely ignoring that class and leveling a different one instead. Especially not core subclass feature.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
With that reasoning, there really is no need for any book containing anything but just the mechanical aspect of the game. OF course, if that was the case, certain people would probably complain about things anyway.
There is no "need" for anything in D&D. There is no "need" for prewritten adventures or fluff pieces or flavor text describing how spells work, yet there is and it helps people enjoy the game. If you'd rather buy puzzle books from walmart, do it. But you not liking something is not the same as it being bad.
Proficiency Bonus scaling is an alternative to having a fixed number of uses for a feature, or a number of uses based on ability scores. That's a whole separate thing from features that get a little bit better each time you level up, like Ki Points.
Ability score modifiers can range from -1 to +5 at character creation, which makes it difficult to balance the power of features that are supposed to have a big impact. Proficiency bonus is predictable, has a sensible minimum built into it already, progresses smoothly even if players want to take 3 feats in a row, and plays nicely with MAD classes or multiclass combos. I don't think it makes sense for every feature (ability scores make a lot more sense for numerical bonuses imo) but it does have a lot of benefits that the designers weren't taking advantage of before.
The other alternative is having a fixed number of uses, and playtest feedback showed that just doesn't resonate with players. Reading that you can use a feature twice per short rest feels arbitrary. Why twice and not thrice? Tying it to PB gives it a narrative hook with your character's progression.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
It seems like a fine addition to me honestly. And it's not like everything is now PB tied either. Take the new favored foe for ranger, sure you get more uses based on proficiency bonus. But for the damage to scale up you still have to level ranger, otherwise it will stay at 1d4. So sure my rogue could say dip one level into ranger and pick up this ability, but it's not going to be as good as a full fledged ranger of the same level because even if the number of uses are the same, the power of it is not.
Wails from the grave can be used a number of times equal to proficiency bonus yes, but unless you're doing deep into rogue your sneak attack dice aren't going to be very numerous.
Some like writhing tide for swarmkeeper require you to go deep into the class anyway to get them and not just a level or two dip for a quick cheese multiclass.
I didn’t say it was “bad,” I said it was unnecessary. You know what, I’m done with this part of the conversation. MY OPINION is that’s Tasha’s Cauldron of Toilet Water was so bad that Crawford should be fired. You don’t like my opinion, congrats. But stop arguing against my opinion because it won’t change.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That fact that someone can take a dip into another class and then completely ignore it, but that dip class’ features continue to improve is un-D&D. Class features should only increase with either class progression, or direct investment on the part of the player through ASIs. Everything you just listed as “good” points about it are exactly why it should never have happened. They are, in my opinion, all bad points and the exact reasons why I am opposed to it.
Ki doesn’t get better each time you level up. Ki only gets better exact time you level up as a Monk. You can’t take three levels in Monk and then completely ignore it and still get more Ki. Your Martial Arts die won’t get bigger by ignoring Monk. It stays static. You can’t take a dip into Sorcerer and continue getting more Sorcery points or Metamagic even though you keep leveling up as a Bard. You cannot dip into Rogue and continue to accrue Sneak Attack dice by ignoring Rogue to level up as a Monk. It doesn’t work that way.
But by tying features to PB, that’s exactly what can happen, and it shouldn’t. Racial features scaling with PB? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Feats improving with PB? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Class or Subclass features scaling with PB? Absolutely not, should never have happened.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Agreed. I banned almost everything but the class feature options (such as they are), feats, spells (other than Dream the blue DM’s nightmare, that ****er’s right out) and some of the magic items. Almost every subclass is banned at my table, as is the lineage system.
And as to “satisfying vocal activists,” they completely pissed this vocal activist off with the way they corn-holed the bejeepers outta Psionics this edition. Crawford should be shit-canned just for that alone.
Jeremy Crawford is the Matt Ward of D&D. He should be forced to walk door-by-door and buy back every copy of Tasha’s Midden out of his own pocket with a personalized apology to every D&D player living or dead.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
See, I tried to just leave my 2cp that Tasha’s was his worst call. Youse all had ta keep pokin’ the bear.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No one is required to reply to any post in any thread in any forum.
Regarding that, there really isn't any new discussion this time that wasn't had last time. If you don't agree with his calls, don't use them, but it's interesting to see the intent behind someone who is an active participant in the development of the game. This line in this post isn't directed at anyone in particular, it's a generic catch all statement.
Well, you did, you are and you continue to do.
But you are right in that you have your opinion but once again, you having an opinion doesn't mean that you are right.
Your right that have an opinion doesn't make you right but it also doesn't make you wrong at least in this instance. Which means that the opinion you seem to have, that being Tasha's was good, is not any more correct than sposta's. The only fact regarding whether or not Tasha's was good or not is that it was divisive. And arguing over it with stranger serves no purpose because the argument is based on opinions and preferences something that is damn near impossible to win an argument with
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Plenty complaints about D&D being all about combat and the other two pillars not getting enough attention too. If a module is presented as trying to fix that, I'm at the very least going to check it out rather than see it as a cause for alarm.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Neither is it called "Dropkicks and Decapitacions". You are also wrong on the subclass features, but I assume you meant it as a hyperbole.
Jeremy Crawford has a small problem. He's not very good at off-the-cuff observations. He tends not to think all that hard before he answers. That's why when someone asks about a D&D game rule, he talks about some homebrew that he uses in his games. Sometimes he changes his mind. One person asks, he gives an answer, another asks the same or similar question and they get a different answer. He's capable of making mistakes. There's quite a few rules out there, even in just the core books, and people ask him about options from other books. He didn't help write those. How would he know? Your guess is as good as his.
The thing to keep in mind is that there were two people who helped write the core rules. If you really need to know something about the core rules ask Jeremy, and Mike Mearls. If they both say the same thing, you're probably got a winner.
He means well. He seems like a nice guy. He is willing to hang around in Twitter and answer things after all. He spends his free time trying to help people with something he does for a living.
<Insert clever signature here>
ASI-based features suffer from the exact same thing you're complaining about. I can take 1 level in Light Cleric and keep improving Warding Flare through ASIs gained from levels in other classes. The idea that ASIs are ok because they require making a "direct investment" the player was going to make anyways is completely arbitrary.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I think that it is fair to say that the majority of class and subclass features are combat based.
I also think it's fair to say you can run a game with low combat.
I think it's also fair to say if you want to play a ttrpg with 0 combat for an entire campaign then yes there is better systems then 5e for that.
Let's. Because your math is waaay off. :)
Only the attack roll is inherently tied to combat. The other two can be used in any situation.
This is objectively false. You can lose hit points for a number of reasons, combat is just one of them. The actual ability of Song of Rest can only be used outside of combat so it's also not combat related.
"Typically" combat? Perhaps, but that means that at least the other half isn't combat. :)
Again, you are completely wrong when you say that anything HP-related is automatically combat. That is simply not how the game works. And the bard has comparetively few pure damage spells. The fact that something can be used in both combat and for other pillars doesn't mean that it's "automatically combat".
We could, but I think I've shown that you are wrong already. I'm more curious as to why you chose to ignore the Bard's most iconic ability, Jack of all Trades. Any particular reason why you chose to ignore this inherently non-combat ability?
Nice moving of the goalposts. The original claim was " 90% to 95% of all subclass features in the game are designed around combat", not "90% of the games features are indeed combat based." Quite the difference.
But let's work out the maths and see if you are correct, just using the example in this thread. The Bard has the following base class abilities (ignoring ASIs and number of spell levels as well as subclass features); Spellcasting, Bardic Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Song of Rest, Expertise, Font of Inspiration, Countercharm, Magical Secrets and Superior Inspiration. I'm counting the features that just get improved (like the bardic inspiration die) and those you get multiple times (like magical secrets) just once, for simplicitiy's sake. That's a total of 9 class features but some of them have multiple areas of use so the total will be more than that.
For those keeping scores at home that means that "combat" has a total of 5 points, out of combat has 9 points. I haven't got a calculator on me but I'm pretty sure that 5 is less than 9 and that 5 isn't "90% to 95%" of the total number.
And yes, of course certain classes and subclasses will have more abilities focusing on combat, because those are the combat-oriented classes and subclasses, but even the Champion gets one out of five subclass features (that's 20% for those who count, or care) that has out of combat use. So claiming that "90% to 95% of all subclass features in the game are designed around combat" is simply wrong.