The GFB change is actually an errata by WotC and future SCAG publications should also have the updated version. TCoE is reprinting GFB and merely printing the most up to date version of it.
I'm not sure why people are upset about Green Flame Blade; unless I've missed something major the damage is still the same, all it does is clarify that the weapon you use as the material component must be the one that you attack with, which is how most people used it anyway, and how it always seemed intended to be used.
My favourite element are the feats; for my money I'd wager we're going to finally see choices other than Mobile on Monks in future as a result of that one feat alone, and I'm excited to see what that does for people's monks, as it opens up weapon choices beyond just the usual staff or spear, and will mesh with various Monk sub-classes in interesting ways. The weapon damage feats may be interesting as well given that it means you won't just be able to swap for any magic item you find and have proficiency in.
There are also a lot of sub-classes, and while some have been toned down quite a bit from UA, they're all still interesting, though I don't know that affects my long list of future character builds yet, as I've still barely played what we already have.
I think overall there seem to be a lot of positive changes, and like Xanathar's Guide it's good value, though not every character will get something out of it, I think looking at in terms of "how does my current character benefit" is wrong; it's about what it gives your next character as options to build from. Though magic items and feats should work into most campaigns fairly easily.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I found a majority of the content disappointing or uninspiring, but not unexpected. I tend to play WIS-based spellcasters (including Rangers) and there was not a lot here for us. The UA options were great, especially for Rangers. And I knew they'd get dialed back for publication, but the way they got dialed back, and how was very frustrating. Similarly looking at all the candy wizards get in the magic items and spells section, where my casters get almost nothing (couldn't you have let clerics keep Otherworldly Guise?). And then even for wizards it's 'you have have the cherry flavored book, or the strawberry flavored book, or the lemon flavored book' and the spells are 'demon flavored spell, fae flavored spell, beast flavored spell' and I'm never going to waste my concentration on any of those. I am happy that the sorcerers got some interesting looking stuff, though I'm miffed that Metamagic Adept made it to publication. WYGD.
Honestly, my only consolation is that because they dragged their heels so long on getting CFV working on this site, if I do use any of this content here I can just homebrew it rather than spending money on the book. This is a book that I would borrow from a friend or library, not add to my own print collection.
I mean, by that logic, why buy any book? You can homebrew everything that they've implemented on this site.
The reason to buy it? Ease of access for yourself/whomever you share it with.
As for Wizards getting cool magic items? Well, it is called WIZARDS of the Coast, not Druids of the Coast or Clerics of the Coast. Also, it's a book written by a famous and far travelled WIZARD, of course she's going to talk about all the cool wizard books she found.
I would buy a book (or a portion thereof) on this site if I thought I was going to use mechanics from it for more than a one-shot. If I'm only mucking around with character creation for my own entertainment, then yeah, I usually just homebrew it, because I also like knowing how to use the homebrew tools for when I need to create original stuff. So basically my point is that I can't see myself using much of the content here.
And I've heard the wizards joke too many times to count. The game isn't called Wizards of We Don't Need Any Other Classes to Have Abilities, is it?
I found a majority of the content disappointing or uninspiring, but not unexpected. I tend to play WIS-based spellcasters (including Rangers) and there was not a lot here for us. The UA options were great, especially for Rangers. And I knew they'd get dialed back for publication, but the way they got dialed back, and how was very frustrating. Similarly looking at all the candy wizards get in the magic items and spells section, where my casters get almost nothing (couldn't you have let clerics keep Otherworldly Guise?). And then even for wizards it's 'you have have the cherry flavored book, or the strawberry flavored book, or the lemon flavored book' and the spells are 'demon flavored spell, fae flavored spell, beast flavored spell' and I'm never going to waste my concentration on any of those. I am happy that the sorcerers got some interesting looking stuff, though I'm miffed that Metamagic Adept made it to publication. WYGD.
Honestly, my only consolation is that because they dragged their heels so long on getting CFV working on this site, if I do use any of this content here I can just homebrew it rather than spending money on the book. This is a book that I would borrow from a friend or library, not add to my own print collection.
I mean, by that logic, why buy any book? You can homebrew everything that they've implemented on this site.
The reason to buy it? Ease of access for yourself/whomever you share it with.
As for Wizards getting cool magic items? Well, it is called WIZARDS of the Coast, not Druids of the Coast or Clerics of the Coast. Also, it's a book written by a famous and far travelled WIZARD, of course she's going to talk about all the cool wizard books she found.
I would buy a book (or a portion thereof) on this site if I thought I was going to use mechanics from it for more than a one-shot. If I'm only mucking around with character creation for my own entertainment, then yeah, I usually just homebrew it, because I also like knowing how to use the homebrew tools for when I need to create original stuff. So basically my point is that I can't see myself using much of the content here.
And I've heard the wizards joke too many times to count. The game isn't called Wizards of We Don't Need Any Other Classes to Have Abilities, is it?
That is something that I am grateful for. Being able to pick and choose exactly what I want to purchase from any given book is a great feature other similar websites like the DM's Guild could seriously benefit from.
Yeah -- if my Twilight Cleric/Phantom Rogue was still around, I would probably end up buying at least one of those sublasses (and try to convince the DM to let me keep the UA of the other).
The GFB change is actually an errata by WotC and future SCAG publications should also have the updated version. TCoE is reprinting GFB and merely printing the most up to date version of it.
Yeah this occurred to me earlier. I hereby walk back my previous statement.
I'm still underwhelmed but I think that's a "me" problem more than a D&D problem. I think "these times" are getting to me, and I've made my whole life revolve around this game for a few years now so the routine is wearing a bit thin. I think I just need to slow down, paint some minis that I want to paint (not ones that I need for the next session), and let myself miss it for a while so I can get excited about it again.
I think it's important for me to remember that this is just a game and I shouldn't let it affect my mood as much as I have been.
Personally, I'm rather enjoying it. But I think the big difference between me and a lot of those who are underwhelmed is that I don't mess with UA content. So, for example, when I look at the ranger variants, I say, wow, that makes the ranger a lot more versatile, interesting and useful. Where I think many complaints are that the changes aren't as powerful (or as good) as what the UA had initially been, if I'm understanding it correctly. But for someone coming at it fresh, it's a pretty nice, and needed, upgrade for the ranger. It doesn't seem nerfed to me, because I didn't see the playtest material. So I wonder how much of the disappointment is an expectations issue versus a quality issue.
And for the reprints, I only ever run and play in homebrew games, so a lot of the reprinted material is "new" to me, in the sense that I didn't have a book with artificer or bladesinger in it, for example, so its nice to get a look at them in print.
I'm not trying to tell people who don't like it that they're wrong, or their complaints aren't valid. Just offering a perspective.
I'm moderately surprised not to return to these forums to find a sea of flames telling me that I'm a ridiculous moron for thinking this. That's refreshing.
I think, even having made this thread, that we shouldn't forget that the majority of this book was released for free for like 9 months before publication. I'm thankful for that, as we all should be. However, that doesn't mean the subclasses aren't uninspired.
Where I think many complaints are that the changes aren't as powerful (or as good) as what the UA had initially been, if I'm understanding it correctly. But for someone coming at it fresh, it's a pretty nice, and needed, upgrade for the ranger. It doesn't seem nerfed to me, because I didn't see the playtest material. So I wonder how much of the disappointment is an expectations issue versus a quality issue.
I think this is a fair assessment; I've been following a lot of the UA but only actually using bits and pieces of it (Summon Fey Spirit was just too well suited to my Bard to not use it).
A lot of the UA though was so very clearly going to be toned down; Ranger UA had free super Hunter's Mark which clearly went want too far, Favoured Foe is a little disappointing (I was still hoping it's be Hunter's Mark based) but it's about the level of strength I expected, and IMO the other Ranger options are more important anyway as they make it so easy to build your own ranger. The UA Rune Knight was way too strong up-front compared to other sub-classes, so it was pretty obvious it was going to have some stuff toned down or delayed, but it should still be a really good, fun sub-class to play after balancing.
This is just the reality of playing UA content; some of it is too strong and doomed to be nerfed, it happens all the time.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Big agree on the first part. Unearthed Arcana sets an unrealistic expectation for players and DMs alike. Typically the power level of the most powerful subclasses will be scaled down for proper use in play. This also happened with the subclasses in Xanathar's Guide to Everything, it's just that not as many people were paying attention to the UA articles releasing before then. To expect the content in UA articles to be just as busted as they are presented is a bad mindset.
As for me, even with the lowered power level on some of the subclasses and the optional class features, I'm still very happy to be getting it officially published.
CFVs didn’t need to be merged anywhere near that hard! They were gutted, and for no reason.
Release something OP as UA Dial it back for publication
I would much prefer they do the opposite:
Release something meh as UA (to see if there is interest in the theme of that subclass/whatever) Dial it up for publication
I pretty much ignore UA for my games because so much of it is way overpowered.
I would prefer they gave us something balanced in UA and then didn’t really change it much at all unless they were way off the first time.
It’s playtesting material. Calling it UA may obscure that fact a bit sometimes, but it’s playtesting material. Playtests let designers err on the side of being a little too good, because that’s what will get caught and can be corrected. I do think several UA offerings went overboard in that regard and WotC should take better care to avoid that, since they make this playtest material public and not everyone will treat it as such. Nonetheless, this is not the Unearthed Arcana of old - that was official, published, and presumably fully playtested and balanced, stuff. This is not that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
More specifically, favored foe is very much inferior to hunter's mark while not being compatible with it. The only possible benefits are that it might be useful for very long running encounter chains where you run out of spell slots to mark with and that it does not take a bonus action to activate. It cannot even boost damage more than once per turn, rather than hunter's mark which boosts every hit.
The benefit of Favoured Foe is that it doesn't cost a spell slot, and still gives you a reliable damage boost. It's actually interesting that it functions differently because it means that unlike Hunter's Mark it can technically be stacked with some other concentration effects (as their concentration ends as they're resolved, and resolving them can be used to trigger Favoured Foe straight after). Since it's not actually a spell it also can't be dispelled/counter-spelled and should be unaffected by an anti-magic field.
For me the WTF part is why it starts at d4, there's no reason for that. Again, I'd have preferred it wast just some free uses of Hunter's Mark, but it's not a bad feature as-is, it's just different; the key benefit of the feature is that you can boost your damage in a way that doesn't potentially waste spell slots if you cast another concentration effect, and in that way it's still very useful for some builds of Ranger, as they're half-casters so spell slots are precious. If you play a Ranger that is built for using Hunter's Mark most of the time, then you probably won't see a benefit, though it's still potentially useful to have in the back pocket just in case you're running out of spell anyway.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This book is underwhelming. I don't hate it as much as some people do, and I don't praise it as much as some people do, but it's meh. I do like some of the content. This post will be for my first thoughts and criticisms, I may do a more in-depth, uber-long post later.
(Warning, rant about every subclass in minute details.)
I like most of the changes to the Armorer Artificer, except for them losing shield. The nerfs to the Path of the Beast Barbarian a bit disappointing, but it's still a pretty good subclass, at least worth playing (unlike Berserker, Storm Herald, and Battlerage Barbarians). The College of Creation is fine. I don't love it, I don't hate it (That's my general opinion of most bards, it seems). The Peace and Twilight Domains are fine, but I'm not overly excited for either. They're both just new content. The Circle of Stars is great, and Circle of Wildfire is still good (I don't care what the book says, they still get fireball). The Psychic Warrior is fine, I'm not sure if I'll ever use it, but at least it's there. The Rune Knight is still good, cool, and worth playing. I don't care for the Astral Self or Mercy Monks, but I guess they're there. I have an irrational hatred of the Oath of Glory, so I am currently pretending that it does not exist and is not reprinted in this book. The Oath of Watchers is meh. I was genuinely interested in this before, but the changes have ruined it more than it was before. The Ranger class is dead now. WotC has very clearly given up on it, and so have I for the time being. Neither of the subclasses interest me. I like the Phantom Rogue, but it didn't seem to change in the ways I wanted it to, which is disappointing. At least the Tokens of the Departed is useful, now. The Soulknife is also fine, it's a cool rogue. The Aberrant Mind is ridiculously good in comparison to other sorcerers and also has destroyed any chance of real psionics coming in 5e. The Clockwork Soul is there, and better than other sorcerers. The Warlocks are good, at least they were not obliterated. Bladesingers are even more powerful than before, and very abusable in some situations. I also hate the Order of Scribes, and it is banned at my games.
The feats look mostly untouched, which is nice. At least that's not disappointing.
Group Patrons are just as I thought they would be, a completely useless reprint for an unneeded system.
I like the spells that there are (except for the stupid changes to BB/GFB), but the pure lack of new ones is disappointing. There are literally less spells (including the reprinted ones) than the subclasses (excluding the reprints) in this book, which is just idiotic, IMO. Xanathar's Guide to Everything had nearly 100 spells, and spells of every level. I would have expected the infamous witch Tasha would include more spells in her book than the psychotic beholder Xanathar.
The magic items are mostly good, at least. I think it's dumb that Alchemists have no use of the "Alchemical Compendium," though. The All-Purpose Tool is very good, as well as the Amulet of the Devout, Bloodwell Vial, and Arcane Grimoire. The Sorcerer Shards are cool, I guess. I personally wouldn't have bound sorcerers to crystals as I'm not sure if that's a good fit for a Sorcerer. The other Wizard spellbook replacements are cool. The artifacts are cool, but not really anything I would have expected. The Tattoos are cool, but still a bit strange. The Moon Sickle makes the Goodberry-Life Cleric combination so much more abusable (each berry would heal 4+1d4 hit points, so a 1st level casting of the spell should heal on average 65 hit points). I like the class-specific items, but I wish there were more for Artificers, Warlocks, Fighters, Paladins, and other classes that don't have a ton of specific items.
The sidekicks are there, I guess. I don't know if I'll ever use them, but I guess they could get some use. The Environmental Hazard section is cool, as well as the rules for falling into water and puzzles.
So, yeah. The book is "meh." Not horribly awful or groundbreakingly amazing, but it is fine. It has both good and bad content in it. I'm still going to buy the physical copy, as I have every official 5e book, but it could have been better. If fairly easily could have been much, much better. I hope Xanathar's 3.0 (whenever it comes out) is better than this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I like a lot of the stuff in Tasha's. There I said it.
Now that that is out of the way, it does seem pretty bare bones compared to some of the other base game source books.Is not so much "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything" and more "Tasha's Grab-bag of Options". For example, there were no new creatures introduced, the amount of spells added were very small and niche, the magical items are kind of reductive. They did change a decent amount but its difficult to say if that is a part of Tasha's or just an Eterra released at the same time. There are things they said they were doing but didn't do, there are things that they said they were adding but didn't add. The subclasses are hit or miss, but it will always be that way when new stuff is added to the game.
It did get my creative juices flowing though, so I'm satisfied. Even if it does feel underwhelming.
If you have another concentration effect up, it would end that other effect. It is limited to your proficiency bonus worth of targets whereas hunter's mark can be moved between targets and can be sustained up to an hour. How often are you in such situations that you would not use hunter's mark instead? What other spell(s) would you be using that do not require concentration? Oh and if you drop concentration after each hit, then each hit counts as a use.
Remember even if it is so much as extra attack, which the ranger gets as early as 5th, favored foe would only boost damage for the first attack, not the second.
The main cases where you switch concentration as a Ranger are when you have Hunter's Mark up, and want to cast something like Lightning Arrow for AoE, or Zephyr Strike to gain mobility or such. These are concentration spells that end when they trigger, at which point you can immediately trigger Favoured Foe as well.
And as I've already said; Hunter's Mark requires a spell slot, Favoured Foe does not. Half casters have fewer spell slots than full casters, and fewer (no?) ways to extend those, so saving on spell slots is a perfectly valid thing to want to do. If you bring up Hunter's Mark while fighting a spread out mob, then get a perfect opportunity to use Lightning Arrow, then bringing up Hunter's Mark against means you're three slots down. If you use Favoured Foe instead you only need one.
While yes, it uses a different resource, on the other hand it also uses a different resource. It baffles me why people don't see that as valuable.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Group Patrons are just as I thought they would be, a completely useless reprint for an unneeded system.
I was going to say something similar and completely agree. They seem to be leaning into something that is easily (and better) filled by the DM putting in an ounce of effort in creating factions, organizations, etc.
My biggest issue with the book is the Personalizing Spells rules--they're kind of.... obvious. When I heard spell customization was incoming, I was hoping there would be some tangible rules that would codify changing damage types on spells; something that would actually allow you to customize many of the "must include" spells to fit your specific character. Perhaps the most frequent complaint I get from my players is "Fireball is just too good not to take, but I am a [insert different damage type] spellcaster, so it does not make sense for me to be using flames." I have my own homerules about changing damage types (basically splitting different spell types into tiers based on how many likely enemies are going to be resistant/immune to the damage, then allowing players to change type to a lesser or equal tier), but was really hoping Tasha's would contain a uniform set of rules for damage customization that would be applicable across multiple campaigns and with multiple DMs.
Instead, we got "you are allowed to reskin the visuals of your spells to fit your playstyle, but you cannot actually change the contents of the spell, so please feel free to enjoy your fireball-spamming Ice Wizard." No actual mechanical changes, just telling me I can do something that every halfway decent DM instinctively knows and allows.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP oh boy support for my hydromancer. WotC: lul nuh bruh.. you can make it LOOK like water but its really fire..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The GFB change is actually an errata by WotC and future SCAG publications should also have the updated version. TCoE is reprinting GFB and merely printing the most up to date version of it.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
WotC's UA policy is pretty much:
Release something OP as UA
Dial it back for publication
I would much prefer they do the opposite:
Release something meh as UA (to see if there is interest in the theme of that subclass/whatever)
Dial it up for publication
I pretty much ignore UA for my games because so much of it is way overpowered.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
I'm not sure why people are upset about Green Flame Blade; unless I've missed something major the damage is still the same, all it does is clarify that the weapon you use as the material component must be the one that you attack with, which is how most people used it anyway, and how it always seemed intended to be used.
My favourite element are the feats; for my money I'd wager we're going to finally see choices other than Mobile on Monks in future as a result of that one feat alone, and I'm excited to see what that does for people's monks, as it opens up weapon choices beyond just the usual staff or spear, and will mesh with various Monk sub-classes in interesting ways. The weapon damage feats may be interesting as well given that it means you won't just be able to swap for any magic item you find and have proficiency in.
There are also a lot of sub-classes, and while some have been toned down quite a bit from UA, they're all still interesting, though I don't know that affects my long list of future character builds yet, as I've still barely played what we already have.
I think overall there seem to be a lot of positive changes, and like Xanathar's Guide it's good value, though not every character will get something out of it, I think looking at in terms of "how does my current character benefit" is wrong; it's about what it gives your next character as options to build from. Though magic items and feats should work into most campaigns fairly easily.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I would buy a book (or a portion thereof) on this site if I thought I was going to use mechanics from it for more than a one-shot. If I'm only mucking around with character creation for my own entertainment, then yeah, I usually just homebrew it, because I also like knowing how to use the homebrew tools for when I need to create original stuff. So basically my point is that I can't see myself using much of the content here.
And I've heard the wizards joke too many times to count. The game isn't called Wizards of We Don't Need Any Other Classes to Have Abilities, is it?
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
My main issue with GFB/BB is still not working with reach weapons.
D...Do you set the handle on fire or something rather than the blade?
That is something that I am grateful for. Being able to pick and choose exactly what I want to purchase from any given book is a great feature other similar websites like the DM's Guild could seriously benefit from.
Yeah -- if my Twilight Cleric/Phantom Rogue was still around, I would probably end up buying at least one of those sublasses (and try to convince the DM to let me keep the UA of the other).
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Yeah this occurred to me earlier. I hereby walk back my previous statement.
I'm still underwhelmed but I think that's a "me" problem more than a D&D problem. I think "these times" are getting to me, and I've made my whole life revolve around this game for a few years now so the routine is wearing a bit thin. I think I just need to slow down, paint some minis that I want to paint (not ones that I need for the next session), and let myself miss it for a while so I can get excited about it again.
I think it's important for me to remember that this is just a game and I shouldn't let it affect my mood as much as I have been.
Personally, I'm rather enjoying it. But I think the big difference between me and a lot of those who are underwhelmed is that I don't mess with UA content. So, for example, when I look at the ranger variants, I say, wow, that makes the ranger a lot more versatile, interesting and useful. Where I think many complaints are that the changes aren't as powerful (or as good) as what the UA had initially been, if I'm understanding it correctly. But for someone coming at it fresh, it's a pretty nice, and needed, upgrade for the ranger. It doesn't seem nerfed to me, because I didn't see the playtest material. So I wonder how much of the disappointment is an expectations issue versus a quality issue.
And for the reprints, I only ever run and play in homebrew games, so a lot of the reprinted material is "new" to me, in the sense that I didn't have a book with artificer or bladesinger in it, for example, so its nice to get a look at them in print.
I'm not trying to tell people who don't like it that they're wrong, or their complaints aren't valid. Just offering a perspective.
I'm moderately surprised not to return to these forums to find a sea of flames telling me that I'm a ridiculous moron for thinking this. That's refreshing.
I think, even having made this thread, that we shouldn't forget that the majority of this book was released for free for like 9 months before publication. I'm thankful for that, as we all should be. However, that doesn't mean the subclasses aren't uninspired.
I think this is a fair assessment; I've been following a lot of the UA but only actually using bits and pieces of it (Summon Fey Spirit was just too well suited to my Bard to not use it).
A lot of the UA though was so very clearly going to be toned down; Ranger UA had free super Hunter's Mark which clearly went want too far, Favoured Foe is a little disappointing (I was still hoping it's be Hunter's Mark based) but it's about the level of strength I expected, and IMO the other Ranger options are more important anyway as they make it so easy to build your own ranger. The UA Rune Knight was way too strong up-front compared to other sub-classes, so it was pretty obvious it was going to have some stuff toned down or delayed, but it should still be a really good, fun sub-class to play after balancing.
This is just the reality of playing UA content; some of it is too strong and doomed to be nerfed, it happens all the time.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
CFVs didn’t need to be merged anywhere near that hard! They were gutted, and for no reason.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I would prefer they gave us something balanced in UA and then didn’t really change it much at all unless they were way off the first time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It’s playtesting material. Calling it UA may obscure that fact a bit sometimes, but it’s playtesting material. Playtests let designers err on the side of being a little too good, because that’s what will get caught and can be corrected. I do think several UA offerings went overboard in that regard and WotC should take better care to avoid that, since they make this playtest material public and not everyone will treat it as such. Nonetheless, this is not the Unearthed Arcana of old - that was official, published, and presumably fully playtested and balanced, stuff. This is not that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The benefit of Favoured Foe is that it doesn't cost a spell slot, and still gives you a reliable damage boost. It's actually interesting that it functions differently because it means that unlike Hunter's Mark it can technically be stacked with some other concentration effects (as their concentration ends as they're resolved, and resolving them can be used to trigger Favoured Foe straight after). Since it's not actually a spell it also can't be dispelled/counter-spelled and should be unaffected by an anti-magic field.
For me the WTF part is why it starts at d4, there's no reason for that. Again, I'd have preferred it wast just some free uses of Hunter's Mark, but it's not a bad feature as-is, it's just different; the key benefit of the feature is that you can boost your damage in a way that doesn't potentially waste spell slots if you cast another concentration effect, and in that way it's still very useful for some builds of Ranger, as they're half-casters so spell slots are precious. If you play a Ranger that is built for using Hunter's Mark most of the time, then you probably won't see a benefit, though it's still potentially useful to have in the back pocket just in case you're running out of spell anyway.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This book is underwhelming. I don't hate it as much as some people do, and I don't praise it as much as some people do, but it's meh. I do like some of the content. This post will be for my first thoughts and criticisms, I may do a more in-depth, uber-long post later.
(Warning, rant about every subclass in minute details.)
I like most of the changes to the Armorer Artificer, except for them losing shield. The nerfs to the Path of the Beast Barbarian a bit disappointing, but it's still a pretty good subclass, at least worth playing (unlike Berserker, Storm Herald, and Battlerage Barbarians). The College of Creation is fine. I don't love it, I don't hate it (That's my general opinion of most bards, it seems). The Peace and Twilight Domains are fine, but I'm not overly excited for either. They're both just new content. The Circle of Stars is great, and Circle of Wildfire is still good (I don't care what the book says, they still get fireball). The Psychic Warrior is fine, I'm not sure if I'll ever use it, but at least it's there. The Rune Knight is still good, cool, and worth playing. I don't care for the Astral Self or Mercy Monks, but I guess they're there. I have an irrational hatred of the Oath of Glory, so I am currently pretending that it does not exist and is not reprinted in this book. The Oath of Watchers is meh. I was genuinely interested in this before, but the changes have ruined it more than it was before. The Ranger class is dead now. WotC has very clearly given up on it, and so have I for the time being. Neither of the subclasses interest me. I like the Phantom Rogue, but it didn't seem to change in the ways I wanted it to, which is disappointing. At least the Tokens of the Departed is useful, now. The Soulknife is also fine, it's a cool rogue. The Aberrant Mind is ridiculously good in comparison to other sorcerers and also has destroyed any chance of real psionics coming in 5e. The Clockwork Soul is there, and better than other sorcerers. The Warlocks are good, at least they were not obliterated. Bladesingers are even more powerful than before, and very abusable in some situations. I also hate the Order of Scribes, and it is banned at my games.
The feats look mostly untouched, which is nice. At least that's not disappointing.
Group Patrons are just as I thought they would be, a completely useless reprint for an unneeded system.
I like the spells that there are (except for the stupid changes to BB/GFB), but the pure lack of new ones is disappointing. There are literally less spells (including the reprinted ones) than the subclasses (excluding the reprints) in this book, which is just idiotic, IMO. Xanathar's Guide to Everything had nearly 100 spells, and spells of every level. I would have expected the infamous witch Tasha would include more spells in her book than the psychotic beholder Xanathar.
The magic items are mostly good, at least. I think it's dumb that Alchemists have no use of the "Alchemical Compendium," though. The All-Purpose Tool is very good, as well as the Amulet of the Devout, Bloodwell Vial, and Arcane Grimoire. The Sorcerer Shards are cool, I guess. I personally wouldn't have bound sorcerers to crystals as I'm not sure if that's a good fit for a Sorcerer. The other Wizard spellbook replacements are cool. The artifacts are cool, but not really anything I would have expected. The Tattoos are cool, but still a bit strange. The Moon Sickle makes the Goodberry-Life Cleric combination so much more abusable (each berry would heal 4+1d4 hit points, so a 1st level casting of the spell should heal on average 65 hit points). I like the class-specific items, but I wish there were more for Artificers, Warlocks, Fighters, Paladins, and other classes that don't have a ton of specific items.
The sidekicks are there, I guess. I don't know if I'll ever use them, but I guess they could get some use. The Environmental Hazard section is cool, as well as the rules for falling into water and puzzles.
So, yeah. The book is "meh." Not horribly awful or groundbreakingly amazing, but it is fine. It has both good and bad content in it. I'm still going to buy the physical copy, as I have every official 5e book, but it could have been better. If fairly easily could have been much, much better. I hope Xanathar's 3.0 (whenever it comes out) is better than this.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I like a lot of the stuff in Tasha's. There I said it.
Now that that is out of the way, it does seem pretty bare bones compared to some of the other base game source books. Is not so much "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything" and more "Tasha's Grab-bag of Options". For example, there were no new creatures introduced, the amount of spells added were very small and niche, the magical items are kind of reductive. They did change a decent amount but its difficult to say if that is a part of Tasha's or just an Eterra released at the same time. There are things they said they were doing but didn't do, there are things that they said they were adding but didn't add. The subclasses are hit or miss, but it will always be that way when new stuff is added to the game.
It did get my creative juices flowing though, so I'm satisfied. Even if it does feel underwhelming.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
The main cases where you switch concentration as a Ranger are when you have Hunter's Mark up, and want to cast something like Lightning Arrow for AoE, or Zephyr Strike to gain mobility or such. These are concentration spells that end when they trigger, at which point you can immediately trigger Favoured Foe as well.
And as I've already said; Hunter's Mark requires a spell slot, Favoured Foe does not. Half casters have fewer spell slots than full casters, and fewer (no?) ways to extend those, so saving on spell slots is a perfectly valid thing to want to do. If you bring up Hunter's Mark while fighting a spread out mob, then get a perfect opportunity to use Lightning Arrow, then bringing up Hunter's Mark against means you're three slots down. If you use Favoured Foe instead you only need one.
While yes, it uses a different resource, on the other hand it also uses a different resource. It baffles me why people don't see that as valuable.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I was going to say something similar and completely agree. They seem to be leaning into something that is easily (and better) filled by the DM putting in an ounce of effort in creating factions, organizations, etc.
All things Lich - DM tips, tricks, and other creative shenanigans
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP oh boy support for my hydromancer. WotC: lul nuh bruh.. you can make it LOOK like water but its really fire..