I think Tasha is a thought book, like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes or a setting book, rather than a crunch mechanics-heavy book, such as Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
It isn't really though, most of us DM's have been doing most of this books content for a long time already, that's what being a DM is all about. We certainly don't need WoTC to write a lecture to 'Be good to each other'. Bill and Ted and E.T. told us that in the 80's, and again California Man told us in the 90's. It was just their attempt to pad out the book and distract us from how badly they nerfed some of the subclasses. There is nothing in the book at all that is really exciting - from a story telling perspective, not a mechanics one.
I don’t know that you can say “most of us DMs” have been doing something. Experienced DMs may have, but it seems like you underestimate how many people are new to the game. Think about how many threads there are in these message boards that involve a DM with one or two players who have a different playstyle, and leave us suggesting they should do a session 0. Or how many threads are basically asking for permission to do something not specifically written in the rules (even things as simple as changing the color of their spell effects), or if they can deviate slightly from the plot of a written adventure. Now think about how many there must be who have those questions but don’t post them. Many of us who post on message boards may not need a thing, but there are still going to be lots of people out there who do.
(WARNING: Opinion, not fact.) For DMs who already adjust the rules for their players' enjoyment, TCoE doesn't really add anything they didn't already know - that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them. So, I can see how some DMs and players find it "meh" if it's something they're already doing.
I can also see how some DMs and players find it awesome to learn that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them (despite all I've seen in 5e suggesting that this was always the case).
I can also see how some DMs and players find it annoying when others point to TCoE options as required at all tables.
Yes this, I think it was both "meh" and exactly what I want from WOTC. For most of the table rules options, my groups already had a version, so we swap one or two out and keep the rest. For the classes, many members of my groups have a setting book or two, but now DM can buy TCOE and not have to pick up SCAG & Theros & Eberron.
It does not add much for my groups, but it does make it easier for the players who don't buy everything to keep up.
(WARNING: Opinion, not fact.) For DMs who already adjust the rules for their players' enjoyment, TCoE doesn't really add anything they didn't already know - that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them. So, I can see how some DMs and players find it "meh" if it's something they're already doing.
I can also see how some DMs and players find it awesome to learn that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them (despite all I've seen in 5e suggesting that this was always the case).
I can also see how some DMs and players find it annoying when others point to TCoE options as required at all tables.
Yes this, I think it was both "meh" and exactly what I want from WOTC. For most of the table rules options, my groups already had a version, so we swap one or two out and keep the rest. For the classes, many members of my groups have a setting book or two, but now DM can buy TCOE and not have to pick up SCAG & Theros & Eberron.
It does not add much for my groups, but it does make it easier for the players who don't buy everything to keep up.
Yeah I think this is why it feels so "meh". Its purposefully simple and vauge which is good for some but frustrating for others. Overall it makes it so it seems they put very little work into the biggest concepts (CFV, Character creation options, etc...) which is likely the case. They just want the DM and table to make most of the decisions which is both fair but kind of a cop out at the same time.
Part of me wants them to be more bold and take chances as this unbridled mediocrity makes the book lack that "Wow" factor.
Xanathar's was and is one of the best (if not the best) book of D&D 5e, outside the core 5e rulebooks. It has a ton of great and extremely popular subclasses (Hexblade, Oath of Conquest, College of Whispers, Kensei Monk, Gloomstalker/Horizon Walker, Swashbuckler, Divine Soul, and many others), an extremely useful section for rules on falling, racial feats, tons of great spells, and useful tables for name generation. These all combined made the book be great, with the majority of it being useful in every D&D campaign. Let's compare that to Tasha's.
Tasha's is one of the most (if not the most) underwhelming book of D&D 5e, excluding the SCAG and half of the DMG. It has significantly less subclasses than Xanathar's, a lot of them being less inspiring and interesting than the ones in XGtE (IMO, of course, but I know a lot of people agree with me), way less spells than XGtE, and much more fluff and insubstantial page-filling than Xanathar's did. There are a few useful and interesting things in the book (magic items, some of the subclasses, some of the spells, etc), but far less than there are in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Xanathar's is way better than Tasha's, and is what Tasha's should have been (in quality).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Xanathar's was and is one of the best (if not the best) book of D&D 5e, outside the core 5e rulebooks. It has a ton of great and extremely popular subclasses (Hexblade, Oath of Conquest, College of Whispers, Kensei Monk, Gloomstalker/Horizon Walker, Swashbuckler, Divine Soul, and many others), an extremely useful section for rules on falling, racial feats, tons of great spells, and useful tables for name generation. These all combined made the book be great, with the majority of it being useful in every D&D campaign. Let's compare that to Tasha's.
Tasha's is one of the most (if not the most) underwhelming book of D&D 5e, excluding the SCAG and half of the DMG. It has significantly less subclasses than Xanathar's, a lot of them being less inspiring and interesting than the ones in XGtE (IMO, of course, but I know a lot of people agree with me), way less spells than XGtE, and much more fluff and insubstantial page-filling than Xanathar's did. There are a few useful and interesting things in the book (magic items, some of the subclasses, some of the spells, etc), but far less than there are in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Xanathar's is way better than Tasha's, and is what Tasha's should have been (in quality).
It's a double whammy, as when Xanathar's came out 5e still felt new and quite unknown, and we didn't have many subclasses at all at that point. We also didn't have any clue where the designers wanted to head with 5e as a whole.
So this book full of exciting new subclasses and spells was awesome and novel and new and cool.
Now we're 6 years into 5e, and the formula hasn't changed. Just put out another few subclasses every few years and call it a day. And as subclasses are so minor mechanically it's basically a new coat of paint on the same old classes. And then on top of that is has less than Xanathar's had, as well as glaring mistakes which shouldn't have got past print like recommending weapon master for fighter. And an entire section of the book patronisingly telling you how to be nice to each other at the table.
It actually has only 1 less subclass than Xanathar's, Third_Sundering, and while I do not agree that all the subclasses are great (I'm no fan of College of Creation Bard or of the Clockwork Soul Sorcerer), I think that Tasha's has enough to merit it a good book.
For goodness sake, even SCAG is a good book, every single D&D 5e book is a good book! Sure, Tasha may be not your "thing", but that's your choice to let it be so.
Sure, less new spells and stuff - but we have more spells than anyone could possibly ever use anyway, so a mere trickle of spells doesn't hurt. Tasha's is AL legal as well, which adds a whole new dimension to the Adventurer's League.
Sure, its got fluff, but that fluff is so good in my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine! Everyone has different ideas. But, to be completely honest, Xanathar is good for its crunch and subclasses, and Tasha's is good for its races and class options. Even just those are good enough to merit Tasha's existence on their own. The rest of the stuff is just pleasant extras.
No-one was going to out-do Xanathar's (it seems even more beloved than the DMG and MM for goodness sake!), but Tasha's gave it a pretty good go. It may not be 100% worth the hype in your opinion, but the hype was so huge, it was like Rise of Skywalker or even Fantastic Beasts - it's just not able to compete with that much hype, even if it is a terrible thing (LOOKING AT YOU, RISE). Give the book some breathing space and I'll swear, it'll grow on you eventually.
"What's with all the hype, anyway? Hype is the enemy of progress. Unless the hype is about me. Then it's okay." - T
I really want a book to come out that explains that changing the damage type on certain things is ok to the DM, but Tasha's does the opposite and says 'you can makes your fireball red lightning, but it still does fire damage'.
I'm worried that many DM's who would previously be ok with changing damage type will now be against doing it due to that section in Tasha's. This book directly discourages DM's from making changes to spells which isn't ok at all.
That entire section should have given the DM a load of guidelines about how to mechanically change and reflavour spells, like the article we had on DnD beyond. An oathbreaker paladin doing necrotic instead of radiant on their divine smite, or a storm sorcerer using lightning jolt instead of firebolt, or a fire genasi doing flaming grasp rather than chocking grasp should be encouraged imo.
A section on tweaking spells is something that I now really want to see in the next book in order to undo the damage this one has done. It's been explained before that they don't balance via damage type, so not sure why Tasha's suddenly says it's not ok.
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
This on top of ~16 new spells vs. 53 in Xanathars! That's the worst offense to me...the book is from one of the named wizards and only has 16 new spells is pretty bad.
There is some good stuff in there (I like the ranger changes sans Favored Foe) but overall its a big ol meh.
It actually has only 1 less subclass than Xanathar's, Third_Sundering, and while I do not agree that all the subclasses are great (I'm no fan of College of Creation Bard or of the Clockwork Soul Sorcerer), I think that Tasha's has enough to merit it a good book.
It's more than that. Most of the subclasses are just "meh" to me. Here are the ones that I find "meh":
College of Creation Bard
Twilight Domain Cleric
Peace Domain Cleric
Psi Knight Fighter
Way of Mercy Monk
Way of the Astral Self Monk
Oath of Watchers Paladin
Fey Wanderer Ranger
Swarmkeeper Ranger
Soul Knife Rogue
Aberrant Mind Sorcerer
Clockwork Soul Sorcerer
Fathomless Warlock
Order of the Scribes Wizard
For me, that's more than half of the new subclasses that are just "meh" or worse. There are also 7 reprints (I find the Order Domain Cleric and Oath of Glory Paladin meh).
For goodness sake, even SCAG is a good book, every single D&D 5e book is a good book! Sure, Tasha may be not your "thing", but that's your choice to let it be so.
Agree to disagree. The SCAG is bad. I also have every right as a member of the community to express my disappointment in this book. It will help make later books better, hopefully.
Sure, less new spells and stuff - but we have more spells than anyone could possibly ever use anyway, so a mere trickle of spells doesn't hurt. Tasha's is AL legal as well, which adds a whole new dimension to the Adventurer's League.
No. We need more spells. We need way more spells. We have enough fire damaging spells, but we need other elemental damaging spells. We need more spells.
Sure, its got fluff, but that fluff is so good in my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine! Everyone has different ideas. But, to be completely honest, Xanathar is good for its crunch and subclasses, and Tasha's is good for its races and class options. Even just those are good enough to merit Tasha's existence on their own. The rest of the stuff is just pleasant extras.
Also, no. The Group Patrons are completely useless (I'm a newer DM, but have been having my players work for other people since my first campaign), the last chapter's "table guidelines" are ridiculously unnecessary, and the sidekicks are underwhelming. I didn't want to pay for this stuff, I have no use for it. This was meant to be a sequel to Xanathar's, and as good a book as it.
No-one was going to out-do Xanathar's (it seems even more beloved than the DMG and MM for goodness sake!), but Tasha's gave it a pretty good go. It may not be 100% worth the hype in your opinion, but the hype was so huge, it was like Rise of Skywalker or even Fantastic Beasts - it's just not able to compete with that much hype, even if it is a terrible thing (LOOKING AT YOU, RISE). Give the book some breathing space and I'll swear, it'll grow on you eventually.
They could have out-done XGtE (of course it's more beloved than the DMG! Most of the stuff in that book is useless). Tasha's is meh. The hype that it had is what makes it so disappointing. It was supposed to be a good sequel to XGtE, but it ended up failing to deliver that hype.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
For me part of my meh feeling also comes from having purchased digital and ending up with a fairly buggy launch on dnd beyond. Particularly of the things i was most interested in. Once everything is fixed and implemented it will be good but it is probably too late for my hype.
I also hate that it expressly speaks against changing spells in any meaningful way and that the custom lineage system was such a cop out.
Highlights for me are probably the sidekick system being slightly fleshed out, and the puzzles.
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
I’m a mostly DM with sufficient means to buy what I want, but speaking for some of my players: consolidating crunch from setting books has value. I know more than a few who will be picking up Tasha’s on Cyber Monday or have ordered a physical copy (or both), and are pleased to have the Artificer (Xanathar’s doesn’t have an extra class, reprinted or not!) without needing to buy the Eberron book or get the class as a separate item on DDB. Slightly disappointing or not, it’s at least not another setting book with 5% crunch they want to use (and another DM might not have, to share with them). I enjoy setting books, but their appeal is limited to the average player. Tasha’s is no knock-out, but it’s at least worth the price.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
I’m a mostly DM with sufficient means to buy what I want, but speaking for some of my players: consolidating crunch from setting books has value. I know more than a few who will be picking up Tasha’s on Cyber Monday or have ordered a physical copy (or both), and are pleased to have the Artificer (Xanathar’s doesn’t have an extra class, reprinted or not!) without needing to buy the Eberron book or get the class as a separate item on DDB. Slightly disappointing or not, it’s at least not another setting book with 5% crunch they want to use (and another DM might not have, to share with them). I enjoy setting books, but their appeal is limited to the average player. Tasha’s is no knock-out, but it’s at least worth the price.
I definitely agree with reprinting the Artificer in the book, especially with the changes they did to it, but the other stuff don't feel that necessary to me (Eloquence Bard, Spores Druid, Oath of Glory Paladin, Order Domain Cleric). That may be because I already have those books, but on this site it's easy for the DMs who want those subclasses to buy them without them having to reprint anything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
(WARNING: Opinion, not fact.) For DMs who already adjust the rules for their players' enjoyment, TCoE doesn't really add anything they didn't already know - that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them. So, I can see how some DMs and players find it "meh" if it's something they're already doing.
I can also see how some DMs and players find it awesome to learn that optional rules are valid if the table agrees to them (despite all I've seen in 5e suggesting that this was always the case).
I can also see how some DMs and players find it annoying when others point to TCoE options as required at all tables.
TCoE's impact will be up to you... as pretty much everything in 5e has been as far as I'm concerned.
EDIT (hours later rather than post a new response): I can also see how some people may find TCoE to be "meh" if it doesn't give them the options they were hoping to find (again despite the fact that all I've seen in 5e suggests that people were always fully allowed and capable of coming up with their own options).
Only serious bone I have to pick with you is with your comment on the "table" deciding on using Tasha's, or anything, for that matter. There is only one decision-maker, and that is the DM. The players can make their feelings known by either walking or staying.
As for Tasha's and my table, the vast majority of it will never ever see the light of day. The new spells, yes, most are just fine, though I am VERY worried about Spirit Shroud, even in its nerfed form. The various new classes, I will go through on a case by case basis, though I am already banning Twilight Cleric. The new char creation, nope. I am not sure yet what parts of the various spell swapping and skill swapping made it into Tasha's, but 99% certain none of that will be at my table. The current spell rules are fine as is. Sidekicks, group patrons etc, just fluff that can be created ad hoc within the thematic confines of my campaign's history. I don't need some book to tell me how to do that.
I bought hard copies of XGTE, PHB, and of course DMG. My gaming cafe has a library available of all the source books, and I support said cafe. But no way I am giving WOTC coin for this book.
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
I’m a mostly DM with sufficient means to buy what I want, but speaking for some of my players: consolidating crunch from setting books has value. I know more than a few who will be picking up Tasha’s on Cyber Monday or have ordered a physical copy (or both), and are pleased to have the Artificer (Xanathar’s doesn’t have an extra class, reprinted or not!) without needing to buy the Eberron book or get the class as a separate item on DDB. Slightly disappointing or not, it’s at least not another setting book with 5% crunch they want to use (and another DM might not have, to share with them). I enjoy setting books, but their appeal is limited to the average player. Tasha’s is no knock-out, but it’s at least worth the price.
I definitely agree with reprinting the Artificer in the book, especially with the changes they did to it, but the other stuff don't feel that necessary to me (Eloquence Bard, Spores Druid, Oath of Glory Paladin, Order Domain Cleric). That may be because I already have those books, but on this site it's easy for the DMs who want those subclasses to buy them without them having to reprint anything.
Easy is one thing, financially convenient is another. Not every DM is interested in buying everything, or even everything their players want. At the end of the day those are small bits of crunch that for many are more appealing to buy as part of a relatively cheap package, even if individually they’re only a couple of bucks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
I’m a mostly DM with sufficient means to buy what I want, but speaking for some of my players: consolidating crunch from setting books has value. I know more than a few who will be picking up Tasha’s on Cyber Monday or have ordered a physical copy (or both), and are pleased to have the Artificer (Xanathar’s doesn’t have an extra class, reprinted or not!) without needing to buy the Eberron book or get the class as a separate item on DDB. Slightly disappointing or not, it’s at least not another setting book with 5% crunch they want to use (and another DM might not have, to share with them). I enjoy setting books, but their appeal is limited to the average player. Tasha’s is no knock-out, but it’s at least worth the price.
I definitely agree with reprinting the Artificer in the book, especially with the changes they did to it, but the other stuff don't feel that necessary to me (Eloquence Bard, Spores Druid, Oath of Glory Paladin, Order Domain Cleric). That may be because I already have those books, but on this site it's easy for the DMs who want those subclasses to buy them without them having to reprint anything.
Easy is one thing, financially convenient is another. Not every DM is interested in buying everything, or even everything their players want. At the end of the day those are small bits of crunch that for many are more appealing to buy as part of a relatively cheap package, even if individually they’re only a couple of bucks.
That is true for me. It might be true generally for DMs who world-build. Because I design my own setting, I am less likely to buy a book with setting content, and more likely to buy a book that feels more setting-neutral, like Tashas or Xanathars.
That said, I understand that the Players Handbook, Tashas, and Xanathars are all Forgotten Realms, but to some degree there is some effort to make the content available to other settings. Heh, at least to the degree I can ignore the Cleric class and the endless references to polytheism.
Also, I love modern/urban magic settings, so I do have books from Eberron and Ravnica.
That said, I understand that the Players Handbook, Tashas, and Xanathars are all Forgotten Realms, but to some degree there is some effort to make the content available to other settings. Heh, at least to the degree I can ignore the Cleric class and the endless references to polytheism.
That said, I understand that the Players Handbook, Tashas, and Xanathars are all Forgotten Realms, but to some degree there is some effort to make the content available to other settings. Heh, at least to the degree I can ignore the Cleric class and the endless references to polytheism.
Technically, Tasha is Greyhawk, not Faerun.
Noted. But Tasha is part of the 5e version of Forgotten Realms, which has consolidated the core rules content, such as the spell Tashas Hideous Laughter. Similarly 5e Forgotten Realms polytheism has imported some Greyhawk stuff. Not to mention, the 5e Forgotten Realms now has Feywild and Shadowfell from the Nentir Vale setting.
Honestly my biggest gripe with it is the spell wrought tattoo's, more specifically the fact that they fade away after one use. I can accept the leveled spells fading but even the cantrips fade after one use. I would have been much happier if they had been only so many uses per day/rest.
Think of them more as potions than magic items. No imagine having the potion of FInd familiar of Find Steed? Emergency PfEaG? Emergency Mist-step? One-use Counterspell for a non-caster? Now that is a thing some players would sell someone's soul for.
For spells at 1st level or higher that's fine but for the cantrips not so much, after all what's the point of a potion of Thaumaturgy, mold earth, or Prestidigitation. These tend to be used outside of combat where 1 hit wonders tend to be useless. Then the question becomes just how common is your DM going to let them be. Lets use find familiar as an example it allows you to summon a creature with a health of 1d4/1d6 so of it gets hit once or twice that's it, it's dead and gone, or say you chose the form of a rat and now your going on an under water adventure while you can dismiss it and resummon it as an action, in order to change its form you have to cast the spell again but you can't because it's one use only. I'm not saying the tattoos are useless because they're not what they are is incredibly situational after all you don't choose what spell you get it's predetermined by your DM. And while I'm sure there's many DM's out who'd let you pick the spell there's just as many who wont. They just fall short of the mark of what the could have and in my opinion should have been. Then there's the fact that these are supposedly Tattoos you know art that's permanently etched onto your skin/fur/scales/feathers/whatever and yet they fade away after one use. It wouldn't have been an issue if they called them magic war paint or something else just as temporary, but they chose a name that conjures thoughts of permanency. All of these reasons contribute to why they left me disappointed.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don’t know that you can say “most of us DMs” have been doing something. Experienced DMs may have, but it seems like you underestimate how many people are new to the game. Think about how many threads there are in these message boards that involve a DM with one or two players who have a different playstyle, and leave us suggesting they should do a session 0. Or how many threads are basically asking for permission to do something not specifically written in the rules (even things as simple as changing the color of their spell effects), or if they can deviate slightly from the plot of a written adventure. Now think about how many there must be who have those questions but don’t post them.
Many of us who post on message boards may not need a thing, but there are still going to be lots of people out there who do.
Yes this, I think it was both "meh" and exactly what I want from WOTC. For most of the table rules options, my groups already had a version, so we swap one or two out and keep the rest. For the classes, many members of my groups have a setting book or two, but now DM can buy TCOE and not have to pick up SCAG & Theros & Eberron.
It does not add much for my groups, but it does make it easier for the players who don't buy everything to keep up.
Yeah I think this is why it feels so "meh". Its purposefully simple and vauge which is good for some but frustrating for others. Overall it makes it so it seems they put very little work into the biggest concepts (CFV, Character creation options, etc...) which is likely the case. They just want the DM and table to make most of the decisions which is both fair but kind of a cop out at the same time.
Part of me wants them to be more bold and take chances as this unbridled mediocrity makes the book lack that "Wow" factor.
Xanathar's was "wow", Tasha's is "meh".
Xanathar's was and is one of the best (if not the best) book of D&D 5e, outside the core 5e rulebooks. It has a ton of great and extremely popular subclasses (Hexblade, Oath of Conquest, College of Whispers, Kensei Monk, Gloomstalker/Horizon Walker, Swashbuckler, Divine Soul, and many others), an extremely useful section for rules on falling, racial feats, tons of great spells, and useful tables for name generation. These all combined made the book be great, with the majority of it being useful in every D&D campaign. Let's compare that to Tasha's.
Tasha's is one of the most (if not the most) underwhelming book of D&D 5e, excluding the SCAG and half of the DMG. It has significantly less subclasses than Xanathar's, a lot of them being less inspiring and interesting than the ones in XGtE (IMO, of course, but I know a lot of people agree with me), way less spells than XGtE, and much more fluff and insubstantial page-filling than Xanathar's did. There are a few useful and interesting things in the book (magic items, some of the subclasses, some of the spells, etc), but far less than there are in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
Xanathar's is way better than Tasha's, and is what Tasha's should have been (in quality).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's a double whammy, as when Xanathar's came out 5e still felt new and quite unknown, and we didn't have many subclasses at all at that point. We also didn't have any clue where the designers wanted to head with 5e as a whole.
So this book full of exciting new subclasses and spells was awesome and novel and new and cool.
Now we're 6 years into 5e, and the formula hasn't changed. Just put out another few subclasses every few years and call it a day. And as subclasses are so minor mechanically it's basically a new coat of paint on the same old classes. And then on top of that is has less than Xanathar's had, as well as glaring mistakes which shouldn't have got past print like recommending weapon master for fighter. And an entire section of the book patronisingly telling you how to be nice to each other at the table.
It actually has only 1 less subclass than Xanathar's, Third_Sundering, and while I do not agree that all the subclasses are great (I'm no fan of College of Creation Bard or of the Clockwork Soul Sorcerer), I think that Tasha's has enough to merit it a good book.
For goodness sake, even SCAG is a good book, every single D&D 5e book is a good book! Sure, Tasha may be not your "thing", but that's your choice to let it be so.
Sure, less new spells and stuff - but we have more spells than anyone could possibly ever use anyway, so a mere trickle of spells doesn't hurt. Tasha's is AL legal as well, which adds a whole new dimension to the Adventurer's League.
Sure, its got fluff, but that fluff is so good in my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine! Everyone has different ideas. But, to be completely honest, Xanathar is good for its crunch and subclasses, and Tasha's is good for its races and class options. Even just those are good enough to merit Tasha's existence on their own. The rest of the stuff is just pleasant extras.
No-one was going to out-do Xanathar's (it seems even more beloved than the DMG and MM for goodness sake!), but Tasha's gave it a pretty good go. It may not be 100% worth the hype in your opinion, but the hype was so huge, it was like Rise of Skywalker or even Fantastic Beasts - it's just not able to compete with that much hype, even if it is a terrible thing (LOOKING AT YOU, RISE). Give the book some breathing space and I'll swear, it'll grow on you eventually.
"What's with all the hype, anyway? Hype is the enemy of progress. Unless the hype is about me. Then it's okay." - T
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I really want a book to come out that explains that changing the damage type on certain things is ok to the DM, but Tasha's does the opposite and says 'you can makes your fireball red lightning, but it still does fire damage'.
I'm worried that many DM's who would previously be ok with changing damage type will now be against doing it due to that section in Tasha's. This book directly discourages DM's from making changes to spells which isn't ok at all.
That entire section should have given the DM a load of guidelines about how to mechanically change and reflavour spells, like the article we had on DnD beyond. An oathbreaker paladin doing necrotic instead of radiant on their divine smite, or a storm sorcerer using lightning jolt instead of firebolt, or a fire genasi doing flaming grasp rather than chocking grasp should be encouraged imo.
A section on tweaking spells is something that I now really want to see in the next book in order to undo the damage this one has done. It's been explained before that they don't balance via damage type, so not sure why Tasha's suddenly says it's not ok.
I'm counting 31 subclasses in XGtE (4 reprints) and 30 in TCoE (7 reprints). While it is true that there are only 1 less subclass in TCoE than XGtE, more subclasses were reprinted in it than there were in XGtE. There were 27 new subclasses in XGtE and are only 23 new subclasses in TCoE.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This on top of ~16 new spells vs. 53 in Xanathars! That's the worst offense to me...the book is from one of the named wizards and only has 16 new spells is pretty bad.
There is some good stuff in there (I like the ranger changes sans Favored Foe) but overall its a big ol meh.
It's more than that. Most of the subclasses are just "meh" to me. Here are the ones that I find "meh":
For me, that's more than half of the new subclasses that are just "meh" or worse. There are also 7 reprints (I find the Order Domain Cleric and Oath of Glory Paladin meh).
Agree to disagree. The SCAG is bad. I also have every right as a member of the community to express my disappointment in this book. It will help make later books better, hopefully.
No. We need more spells. We need way more spells. We have enough fire damaging spells, but we need other elemental damaging spells. We need more spells.
Also, no. The Group Patrons are completely useless (I'm a newer DM, but have been having my players work for other people since my first campaign), the last chapter's "table guidelines" are ridiculously unnecessary, and the sidekicks are underwhelming. I didn't want to pay for this stuff, I have no use for it. This was meant to be a sequel to Xanathar's, and as good a book as it.
They could have out-done XGtE (of course it's more beloved than the DMG! Most of the stuff in that book is useless). Tasha's is meh. The hype that it had is what makes it so disappointing. It was supposed to be a good sequel to XGtE, but it ended up failing to deliver that hype.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
For me part of my meh feeling also comes from having purchased digital and ending up with a fairly buggy launch on dnd beyond. Particularly of the things i was most interested in. Once everything is fixed and implemented it will be good but it is probably too late for my hype.
I also hate that it expressly speaks against changing spells in any meaningful way and that the custom lineage system was such a cop out.
Highlights for me are probably the sidekick system being slightly fleshed out, and the puzzles.
I’m a mostly DM with sufficient means to buy what I want, but speaking for some of my players: consolidating crunch from setting books has value. I know more than a few who will be picking up Tasha’s on Cyber Monday or have ordered a physical copy (or both), and are pleased to have the Artificer (Xanathar’s doesn’t have an extra class, reprinted or not!) without needing to buy the Eberron book or get the class as a separate item on DDB. Slightly disappointing or not, it’s at least not another setting book with 5% crunch they want to use (and another DM might not have, to share with them). I enjoy setting books, but their appeal is limited to the average player. Tasha’s is no knock-out, but it’s at least worth the price.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I definitely agree with reprinting the Artificer in the book, especially with the changes they did to it, but the other stuff don't feel that necessary to me (Eloquence Bard, Spores Druid, Oath of Glory Paladin, Order Domain Cleric). That may be because I already have those books, but on this site it's easy for the DMs who want those subclasses to buy them without them having to reprint anything.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Only serious bone I have to pick with you is with your comment on the "table" deciding on using Tasha's, or anything, for that matter. There is only one decision-maker, and that is the DM. The players can make their feelings known by either walking or staying.
As for Tasha's and my table, the vast majority of it will never ever see the light of day. The new spells, yes, most are just fine, though I am VERY worried about Spirit Shroud, even in its nerfed form. The various new classes, I will go through on a case by case basis, though I am already banning Twilight Cleric. The new char creation, nope. I am not sure yet what parts of the various spell swapping and skill swapping made it into Tasha's, but 99% certain none of that will be at my table. The current spell rules are fine as is. Sidekicks, group patrons etc, just fluff that can be created ad hoc within the thematic confines of my campaign's history. I don't need some book to tell me how to do that.
I bought hard copies of XGTE, PHB, and of course DMG. My gaming cafe has a library available of all the source books, and I support said cafe. But no way I am giving WOTC coin for this book.
Easy is one thing, financially convenient is another. Not every DM is interested in buying everything, or even everything their players want. At the end of the day those are small bits of crunch that for many are more appealing to buy as part of a relatively cheap package, even if individually they’re only a couple of bucks.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That is true for me. It might be true generally for DMs who world-build. Because I design my own setting, I am less likely to buy a book with setting content, and more likely to buy a book that feels more setting-neutral, like Tashas or Xanathars.
That said, I understand that the Players Handbook, Tashas, and Xanathars are all Forgotten Realms, but to some degree there is some effort to make the content available to other settings. Heh, at least to the degree I can ignore the Cleric class and the endless references to polytheism.
Also, I love modern/urban magic settings, so I do have books from Eberron and Ravnica.
he / him
Technically, Tasha is Greyhawk, not Faerun.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Noted. But Tasha is part of the 5e version of Forgotten Realms, which has consolidated the core rules content, such as the spell Tashas Hideous Laughter. Similarly 5e Forgotten Realms polytheism has imported some Greyhawk stuff. Not to mention, the 5e Forgotten Realms now has Feywild and Shadowfell from the Nentir Vale setting.
he / him
Think of them more as potions than magic items. No imagine having the potion of FInd familiar of Find Steed? Emergency PfEaG? Emergency Mist-step? One-use Counterspell for a non-caster? Now that is a thing some players would sell someone's soul for.
For spells at 1st level or higher that's fine but for the cantrips not so much, after all what's the point of a potion of Thaumaturgy, mold earth, or Prestidigitation. These tend to be used outside of combat where 1 hit wonders tend to be useless. Then the question becomes just how common is your DM going to let them be. Lets use find familiar as an example it allows you to summon a creature with a health of 1d4/1d6 so of it gets hit once or twice that's it, it's dead and gone, or say you chose the form of a rat and now your going on an under water adventure while you can dismiss it and resummon it as an action, in order to change its form you have to cast the spell again but you can't because it's one use only. I'm not saying the tattoos are useless because they're not what they are is incredibly situational after all you don't choose what spell you get it's predetermined by your DM. And while I'm sure there's many DM's out who'd let you pick the spell there's just as many who wont. They just fall short of the mark of what the could have and in my opinion should have been. Then there's the fact that these are supposedly Tattoos you know art that's permanently etched onto your skin/fur/scales/feathers/whatever and yet they fade away after one use. It wouldn't have been an issue if they called them magic war paint or something else just as temporary, but they chose a name that conjures thoughts of permanency. All of these reasons contribute to why they left me disappointed.
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.