So i know that a lot of players love fun powers, especially when it comes to ways to Stack powers on top of powers by evading the usual present power limiters: concentration and No stacking of temporary hit points or multiples of the same spell.
As such, I'm a little concerned about several of the new subclasses in Tashas and how they appear to be able to do the Very Thing the DMG warned us about homebrewing: messing with the action economy or messing with concentration.
I"m looking for ways to nerf, without out-right banning, specific subclasses.
So, far the Nerf List includeds:
* Peace Domain Cleric
Emboldening Bond: At first level, you get a free Bless without Concentration that stacks with the actual Bless spell.
Balm of Peace: Movement-based healing to multiple party members at Level 2. IOW, you can have a Tabaxi Peace Cleric effectively heal surge a whole platoon's worth of PCs and NPCs just by moving and using a Channel Divinity and still use their bonus action and regular movement.
Protective Bond: Combined with an Aura of Vitality and any of the protection-centric melee subclasses, this ability is ridiculously strong.
* Twilight Domain Cleric
Eyes of the Night: With the Sharpshooter feat and Elven accuracy, this makes a level 4 Assassin Rogue/1 Fighter OP night or day.
Twilight Sanctuary: 1d6 + Cleric level healing might not look like much at first, but if you also have Shepherd Druid in the party or several friendly NPCs, this is incredibly strong. Past about level 9 or so, Twilight Sanctuary renders most mooks of the BBEG completely ineffective.
Steps of the Night: Concentration-free flight for you without concentration at full movement speed. You get this at level 6 instead of waiting for level 18 like the Storm Sorcerer. I guess the devs really do hate Sorcs.
* Oath of Watcher Paladin
Watcher's Will: Advantage on all non-physical saves for the 3 to 5 PCs for 1 minute. No concentration. Why does this make me cringe? Bear Totem Barbarians.
Aura of the Sentinel: You boost Initiative of the entire party, basically. In a game with so much emphasis on action economy, this can let the party wipe of map of mooks in no time, leaving the BBG vulnerable to being ganged up on Round 2.
Or maybe I'm over-blowing all of this. But I mostly want to hear from DMs who have played with these or other Tasha's subclasses that felt they shifted the game towards too many easy wins. Also, if you have implemented rules to nerf certain subclasses, how did you present that to the players at your table?
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
* Change Emboldening Bond so that, at 1st level, it applies only to ability checks and saving throws. NO attack rolls. This ability gets canceled if the Peace Cleric makes any type of attack roll - including spell attack rolls - or casts any spell that directly injures one or more other creatures.
I am suggesting this because this subclass is supposed to be a person whose focus is on preventing and ending conflict, not making it a easier for their companions to kill people. Also, stacking Bless on top of Emboldening Bond is now not quite as powerful.
* Change Balm of Peace so that instead of being able to evade all attacks of opportunity, attacks of opportunity are made with disadvantage. This ability would heal a number of creatures equal to 1/2 your Peace Cleric level +1 (minimum 2). No creature may be healed more than once per use of Balm of Peace. At level 8, any creature healed by Balm of Peace has advantage on death saving throws and against the Frightened condition for the next minute starting on their next turn.
The original Balm of Peace was too strong once you count friendly NPCs and summoned creatures. It also became a bit redundant with Mass Cure Wounds starting at 10 level. By attaching the number of creatures healed to the Cleric's level rather than to the Proficiency modifier, it also means the god(s) who provided the Cleric their power are incentivizing that person to increase their abilities as a Peace Cleric rather than to branch out into other classes.
* Modify Protective Bond so that the teleport to take damage for another creature ability can only occur once per round.
The original Protective Bond allowed multiple creatures to basically hopscotch the battlefield and take damage for each other , which both bogs down combat and makes it almost impossible to kill any party member except with very powerful AOEs or by combining strong control spells with strong single target focus fire. IOW, it put the Conjuration School Wizard's 6th level ability to absolute shame.
* Get rid of Potent Spellcasting. Replace it with Envoy of Harmony: You attempt to suppress strong emotions in a group of creatures. Each creature in a 60 foot radius sphere centered on the Cleric must make a Charisma saving throw; a creature can choose to fail its saving throw. If a creatures fails its saving throw, choose one of two effects: 1). You can suppress any effect causing a target to be charmed or frightened. When this EoH's effect ends, any suppressed effect resumes, provided its duration has not ended in the meantime. 2). Or you can make targets indifferent about creatures of your choice that is is hostile toward. This indifference ends if the target is attacked or harmed by a spell or if it witnesses any of its friends being harmed. When the spell ends, the creature may become hostile, at the DM's discretion.
Envoy of Harmony is initiated as a bonus action, lasts for 10 minutes, and requires concentration. Envoy of Harmony may be used a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier between long rests.
It made no sense that a Cleric whose whole theme is "peace" just gets another boring damage cantrip enhancement. *Yawn* Seriously, giving the Cleric a stronger version of Calm Emotions fits far better with the character's role-playing of a diplomat and peace broker.
The Paladin really isn't that strong, I wouldn't worry about it. Advantage on mental saves actually doesn't do much for that Totem barbarian - if your save is terrible to begin with, getting to roll twice isn't nearly as effective as if you had a decent modifier.
The initiative bonus is likewise not a huge deal. You can already have a situation where the party can go before all the monsters and vice versa. If they can wipe out your mooks in one turn, it wasn't a hard encounter in the first place.
I mean compare it to something like Oath of the Ancients, or even Vengeance. Watcher is not really any better.
As for the other stuff, the vast majority seems to be how it combos with other things. If we're houseruling here, just outlaw those combos. Say that EB can't stack with Bless, for example. Don't allow BoP to target NPCs or summons. It's just a lot cleaner to identify the abusive cases and outlaw them rather than rewrite the entire power.
One issue I do have with EB is that it has multiplicative scaling. As your prof bonus goes up, it affects more creatures and can be used more times per day. This is pretty unique and makes it kind of ridiculous at high levels. Tying it's uses to Channel Divinity would somewhat fix this and also have it compete with BoP.
One alternate "nerf" to Peace Domain is to disallow them from ever dealing damage, or if they do so they are stunned or something. This would be on theme and they'd need those OP abilities to pull their weight in the party. If that's not enough, don't let them cast nondamaging "attacks" like Banishment either.
As for Twilight Clerics, a lot has been written about how to change it. From my experience playing it, reducing the range of TS to like 15 feet would do a lot. Depending on how you laid out encounters, that alone could be enough most of the time.
There are some crazy strong subclasses in Tasha's, especially in comparison to PHB and Xanathar's options. I am one of those DMs who really hasn't been a fan of the powercreep in recent releases, and Tasha's content in particular is something that I need players to run by me before I authorize it in my campaign. That said, the only things I've ever banned were the Telepathic and Telekinetic feats because they violate my in-game canon of who has psychic abilities.
As for nerfing...I don't know if I'd do it, personally. I'm a ban-or-adjust kind of DM. Seems more equitable to me. I've got an Eloquence bard in my game and his subclass is a huge pain sometimes, but he's a forever DM and I trust him not to abuse his Universal Speech ability to turn my combat encounters into Naruto détentes. I also have a powergamer, so I watch his builds very carefully and tailor my encounters accordingly - not to counter him, but to provide him a challenge that won't wipe the rest of the party. It's a little more work for me, but it keeps the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. I also find it easier to beef up the relatively underpowered characters with magic items so they are on par with the OP character. That way, the powergamers feel mighty and not like you're out to kneecap them, the other players are at a comparable level, and the encounters can scale upward to make for a more balanced party challenge.
Game Developers (Both D&D and other games) prefer to buff more often than nerf. Players are more welcome to boosts to weak features than nerfs to powerful ones. For a while, WotC's solution to fix weak classes has been to give them powerful subclasses (Looking at you, Hexblade). This sort of worsens the issue by invalidating the other subclasses or even upsetting the balance even further. But they are making steps towards fixing balance, just through a different method.
The Optional Rules presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything are specifically designed with power creep in mind. The involved player and DM decide together whether or not a character can use these optional rules. You add them for weaker characters, and ignore them for more powerful ones, thereby balancing the party a bit more. It's the same logic as granting less-powerful characters more magical items, or throwing more powerful monsters at the party as a whole.
That being said, D&D 5.5e should hopefully fix some of the power creep, so one the best things we can do is provide feedback to Wizards of the Coast.
I think your take on the Peace Domain seems balanced and within flavor.
That said, I would make a case to ban the sub-classes instead of nerfing them, if you're not comfortable playing with them.
My point is: if you nerf them, most people will not play them anyway, and you have put energy into building something that is going to be pretty much useless and, those few (I talk from the experience of someone that had nerfed the early game of Moon Druid back in the day, very few people end up playing a nerfed sub-class) who end up playing, will feel like crap, always looking at what they could've been instead of what they are.
The fact that the benchmark exist is always going to be a looming shadow over the nerfed character and will end up taking some of the fun out of it.
If, even with the ban, a player is insisting on playing the sub-class, because of flavor (which I've never seeing happening, but might happen). I would suggest to build the nerfs with them, they need to have ownership of the decisions to not be hindered by them, you know?
I encourage you to allow these as is, but tell any player that wants to play them that you are concerned about them and may need to tune them down a bit if they seem out of hand.
A lot of these are strong be seem better on paper than in practice, and some of them seem like you are misreading the effects.
For example your concept of emboldening bond being a free bless just isn't accurate. It's really good but it can only be used once a round, bless is used every time you make any of those roles. It can only hit 2 people at lv 1.
Twilight sanctuary is very powerful but also needs the party to be in a 30ft radius with the cleric in the middle. I doesn't take much imagination for someone to figure out how being grouped up can have significant downsides.
I encourage you to allow these as is, but tell any player that wants to play them that you are concerned about them and may need to tune them down a bit if they seem out of hand.
A lot of these are strong be seem better on paper than in practice, and some of them seem like you are misreading the effects.
For example your concept of emboldening bond being a free bless just isn't accurate. It's really good but it can only be used once a round, bless is used every time you make any of those roles. It can only hit 2 people at lv 1.
Twilight sanctuary is very powerful but also needs the party to be in a 30ft radius with the cleric in the middle. I doesn't take much imagination for someone to figure out how being grouped up can have significant downsides.
A couple of notes on your examples:
Emboldening bond is once per turn not once per round, so while if you have extra attack you can only use it on one attack, and it only affects one eldritch blast beam if you use it on your attack you can still use it for a save on each bad guy's turn. So while it is not strictly better than bless for many party members the restriction may may rarely come up (e.g rogues and most spell casters) but will make a big difference to a high level fighter.
A 30 ft radius is a big area in an open area a party of 5 can be 30ft North, South, East and West of the Cleric which is spread out enough to avoid most of the risks of being grouped together. In a confined area the party are likely ot be within 30ft of the cleric anyway. (Someone suggested the radius is reduced to 15ft and this does bring about the risks of being grouped together).
Having said that I am not concerned about Balm of Peace, channel divinities are what a clerics most powerful ability (at least at low levels) and Balm of peace is far less powerful than twilight sanctuary. While Balm of peace is more powerful than a life cleric's preserve life at low levels by about level 8 preseve life is likely to do more healing and the extra flexibility menas it is prbable the more useful feature after about level 5. Bal of peace does very similar healing to preyer of healing but it will be rare you can cast it on the whole party in combat, only taking an action is a BIG benefit so it is a fair bit better than a level 2 spell. Light clerics also have a low level loaded channel divinity 2d10+2 is significant damage at level 2, about the same as a 2nd level burning hands or a shatter but radiance of dawn is a 30ft radius, rarely resisted radiant damage and it doesn't affect your friends, (My DM put outr level 2 party against about a dozen kobalds one radiant of dawn wiped them all out).
I have heard protective bond isn't as powerful as it sounds as the cost of a reaction is quite significant by the time you get to level 6. So overall I don't think a single class peace cleric is that much of a problem. Where peace cleric is insane is as a single level dip for a high level character (When a level 19 monk gains his last level compare getting monk 20 with peace cleric 1)
A couple of mnths ago tere was a forum debating the most powerful subclass opinions were spilit between twilight cleric and Chronurgy Wizard (guess WotC want to sell EGtW as well as Tasha's)
The Paladin really isn't that strong, I wouldn't worry about it. Advantage on mental saves actually doesn't do much for that Totem barbarian - if your save is terrible to begin with, getting to roll twice isn't nearly as effective as if you had a decent modifier.I mean compare it to something like Oath of the Ancients, or even Vengeance. Watcher is not really any better.
I don't want to assume your line of thinking. Now, are you really looking at this closely, though? Pallys already get Aura of Protection automatically at Level 6, which boosts ALL saving throws of creatures w/in 10 feet by a number equal to the Paladin's CHA modifier. We can expect, therefore, that any Barbarian + Paladin melee tag-team will already boost the likely -1 modifier to +1 modifier that the Barbarian has in their INT/WIS/CHA. Advantage to every mental stat save plus the +3/+4 CHA bonus from the Paladin is significant. Not enough to pass muster every time, but VERY useful.
The initiative bonus is likewise not a huge deal. You can already have a situation where the party can go before all the monsters and vice versa. If they can wipe out your mooks in one turn, it wasn't a hard encounter in the first place.
Re-reading it, I sort of agree. I still think that boosting initiative of multiple PCs above 4th level can be quite strong. Think about Assassin Rogues and Gloomstalker Rangers, for example. The main thing that prevents Aura of the Sentinels from being outright OP is: A) most Paladins are bad at Stealth and B) the builds that benefit the most from going before enemy initiative-wise are the most likely to scout ahead and won't stick close by the Paladin at the outset of combat.
Otherwise, I agree with much of the rest of your suggestions about ways to limit the OP-ness of those sub-classes.
Seems more equitable to me. I've got an Eloquence bard in my game and his subclass is a huge pain sometimes, but he's a forever DM and I trust him not to abuse his Universal Speech ability to turn my combat encounters into Naruto détentes. I also have a powergamer, so I watch his builds very carefully and tailor my encounters accordingly - not to counter him, but to provide him a challenge that won't wipe the rest of the party. It's a little more work for me, but it keeps the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. I also find it easier to beef up the relatively underpowered characters with magic items so they are on par with the OP character. That way, the powergamers feel mighty and not like you're out to kneecap them, the other players are at a comparable level, and the encounters can scale upward to make for a more balanced party challenge.
I do see your point. Pre-emptively banning a subclass might make some players uncomfortable. Which is why I'd prefer to nerf the subclass rather than ban outright. Yes, nerfing might also make some people dislike playing the sub-class, but when there are Multiple powergamers on YouTube outright telling them that these subclasses can be OP? In these situations, I want to let them know upfront that I'm not comfortable with the power level combos of certain subclasses. I'm not in favor of stopping multi-classing because that is a general sort of freedom-to-innovate that I want to encourage. I want creative play at my table, but I don't want builds or multi-player combos that can be used all the time that trivialize what should be level-appropriate encounters.
The thing is, I prefer running campaigns without a lot of magic items or mostly providing once-and-done items like scrolls/potions or stuff that is more useful outside of combat than in combat (excluding basic magic weapons, which are almost required after level 5 anyway). I don't like spending a lot of time on magic item tables and the like unless I'm looking for a plot-relevant item to provide to the players as a whole. So relying of dispensing of magic goodies to players just to balance the OP subclass with other subclasses doesn't work for me.
Another thing I've realized is that it's very hard to balance power levels with certain things. Look at Step of the Night again. Compare that to the Moon Druid. For the longest time, the argument was that Moon Druids should not be able to cast spells while Wild-Shaped. Veeeeery limited spell use for a Druid while using one of their iconic features, which can last for hours and which the Druid gets only 2 of until Level 20. Both Druids and Clerics are primary prepared casters. But suddenly you get a Cleric subclass (Twilight) that can fly at full move speed while casting spells from 6th level onwards. If I have a Moon Druid player in the party, how do I balance that? The flexibility added to spellcasting while flying (no concentration for the Twilight Cleric) should not be underestimated.
One other thing to point out about all of the subclasses under discussion is that they make the other players awesome too. If I ever have issues with a powergamer in my groups, I urge them to play a support class and optimize their ability to make the other players more effective. This is different than optimizing other roles for two reasons:
It doesn't hog the spotlight - everyone feels stronger and more empowered
It ups the whole party as a unit in terms of what they can face, meaning a DM can up the difficulty and everyone can handle it
I don't think it's an accident that the subclasses in Tasha's that are OP happen to be support classes. I think the game handles strong support much better than it handles strong damage dealing or "tanking." And support tends to be the least desired role for many groups, so it makes sense that those options might be made a bit more enticing.
No need. Just say NO to Tasha's. A whole book that is 'optional'? Really?! Try Unearthed Arcana OP slushpile of unplaytested material. That's the point. It was intended to break 5e and did. So you'd hafta buy 6e. Take the hint. If you just say RAW/ no optional, DM saves $$$ on book that should never have been published. Shameful, WOTC. Shame on you. Sad.
I do not understand the "low magic concept" or the subclass too strong concept - as the DM you can stack any number of creatures with any number of skills and spells, any number of environmental hazards. It is never a contest - the DM can always structure a combat to TPK a party. ALWAYS - and that incidentally is not the object of combat it should be fun and challenging with a chance of failure but a better chance of success.
If players are playing D&D they should have access to all the official content ---races, subclasses, skills, spells, (level appropriate magic items) - that is what makes it fun for many players.
Arbitrarily nerfing things or not allowing them to have magic gear is depriving your groups of a significant portion of the game - its in large part why I hate adventure league, the arbitrary well this race or whatever is not allowed.
No need. Just say NO to Tasha's. A whole book that is 'optional'? Really?! Try Unearthed Arcana OP slushpile of unplaytested material. That's the point. It was intended to break 5e and did. So you'd hafta buy 6e. Take the hint. If you just say RAW/ no optional, DM saves $$$ on book that should never have been published. Shameful, WOTC. Shame on you. Sad.
Lol. Hyperbole aside. I'd just like to mention that your post is one opinion. As another opinion, personally, I really don't have any issues running a game with ANY of the Tasha's classes. None of them are broken though some do have features that are better than the subclasses from the 2014 PHB - Twilight cleric is one example, though even it certainly doesn't "break 5e".
Whether a game is fun depends on one's personal definition. Keep in mind that the GM is also a player, even if they do not have a PC in game. If the GM is not having fun, why keep GMing? Also, not all players appreciate being able to beat encounters while being carried by just one character.
The other problem that crops up is that having one OP character raises the difficulty curve so much that it may create balance problems for the group. CR is always just an approximation, so combat prep can get skewed by one significantly OP character:
A) If the player with the OP character cannot attend game session at the last minute but everybody else still wants to play, all the combat encounters must be re-planned last minute or else it easily becomes a TPK for the party. A lot of work for the GM.
B) A near-TPK situation is also much more likely if the OP character is unprepared or is separated from the rest of the party, who must now deal with the over-tuned monsters prepared for a higher CR than they can handle without the OP character being nearby.
Last but not least, combat tends to become very predictable if PCs cast the same spells/use the same game-breaking abilities every game despite being high level characters. Novelty is what makes games interesting to a lot of people.
So i know that a lot of players love fun powers, especially when it comes to ways to Stack powers on top of powers by evading the usual present power limiters: concentration and No stacking of temporary hit points or multiples of the same spell.
As such, I'm a little concerned about several of the new subclasses in Tashas and how they appear to be able to do the Very Thing the DMG warned us about homebrewing: messing with the action economy or messing with concentration.
I"m looking for ways to nerf, without out-right banning, specific subclasses.
So, far the Nerf List includeds:
* Peace Domain Cleric
Emboldening Bond: At first level, you get a free Bless without Concentration that stacks with the actual Bless spell.
Balm of Peace: Movement-based healing to multiple party members at Level 2. IOW, you can have a Tabaxi Peace Cleric effectively heal surge a whole platoon's worth of PCs and NPCs just by moving and using a Channel Divinity and still use their bonus action and regular movement.
Protective Bond: Combined with an Aura of Vitality and any of the protection-centric melee subclasses, this ability is ridiculously strong.
* Twilight Domain Cleric
Eyes of the Night: With the Sharpshooter feat and Elven accuracy, this makes a level 4 Assassin Rogue/1 Fighter OP night or day.
Twilight Sanctuary: 1d6 + Cleric level healing might not look like much at first, but if you also have Shepherd Druid in the party or several friendly NPCs, this is incredibly strong. Past about level 9 or so, Twilight Sanctuary renders most mooks of the BBEG completely ineffective.
Steps of the Night: Concentration-free flight for you without concentration at full movement speed. You get this at level 6 instead of waiting for level 18 like the Storm Sorcerer. I guess the devs really do hate Sorcs.
* Oath of Watcher Paladin
Watcher's Will: Advantage on all non-physical saves for the 3 to 5 PCs for 1 minute. No concentration. Why does this make me cringe? Bear Totem Barbarians.
Aura of the Sentinel: You boost Initiative of the entire party, basically. In a game with so much emphasis on action economy, this can let the party wipe of map of mooks in no time, leaving the BBG vulnerable to being ganged up on Round 2.
Or maybe I'm over-blowing all of this. But I mostly want to hear from DMs who have played with these or other Tasha's subclasses that felt they shifted the game towards too many easy wins. Also, if you have implemented rules to nerf certain subclasses, how did you present that to the players at your table?
Powercreep is real, and it sells books.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To start us off:
Proposed Peace Domain Cleric modifications:
* Change Emboldening Bond so that, at 1st level, it applies only to ability checks and saving throws. NO attack rolls. This ability gets canceled if the Peace Cleric makes any type of attack roll - including spell attack rolls - or casts any spell that directly injures one or more other creatures.
I am suggesting this because this subclass is supposed to be a person whose focus is on preventing and ending conflict, not making it a easier for their companions to kill people. Also, stacking Bless on top of Emboldening Bond is now not quite as powerful.
* Change Balm of Peace so that instead of being able to evade all attacks of opportunity, attacks of opportunity are made with disadvantage. This ability would heal a number of creatures equal to 1/2 your Peace Cleric level +1 (minimum 2). No creature may be healed more than once per use of Balm of Peace. At level 8, any creature healed by Balm of Peace has advantage on death saving throws and against the Frightened condition for the next minute starting on their next turn.
The original Balm of Peace was too strong once you count friendly NPCs and summoned creatures. It also became a bit redundant with Mass Cure Wounds starting at 10 level. By attaching the number of creatures healed to the Cleric's level rather than to the Proficiency modifier, it also means the god(s) who provided the Cleric their power are incentivizing that person to increase their abilities as a Peace Cleric rather than to branch out into other classes.
* Modify Protective Bond so that the teleport to take damage for another creature ability can only occur once per round.
The original Protective Bond allowed multiple creatures to basically hopscotch the battlefield and take damage for each other , which both bogs down combat and makes it almost impossible to kill any party member except with very powerful AOEs or by combining strong control spells with strong single target focus fire. IOW, it put the Conjuration School Wizard's 6th level ability to absolute shame.
* Get rid of Potent Spellcasting. Replace it with Envoy of Harmony: You attempt to suppress strong emotions in a group of creatures. Each creature in a 60 foot radius sphere centered on the Cleric must make a Charisma saving throw; a creature can choose to fail its saving throw. If a creatures fails its saving throw, choose one of two effects: 1). You can suppress any effect causing a target to be charmed or frightened. When this EoH's effect ends, any suppressed effect resumes, provided its duration has not ended in the meantime. 2). Or you can make targets indifferent about creatures of your choice that is is hostile toward. This indifference ends if the target is attacked or harmed by a spell or if it witnesses any of its friends being harmed. When the spell ends, the creature may become hostile, at the DM's discretion.
Envoy of Harmony is initiated as a bonus action, lasts for 10 minutes, and requires concentration. Envoy of Harmony may be used a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier between long rests.
It made no sense that a Cleric whose whole theme is "peace" just gets another boring damage cantrip enhancement. *Yawn* Seriously, giving the Cleric a stronger version of Calm Emotions fits far better with the character's role-playing of a diplomat and peace broker.
The Paladin really isn't that strong, I wouldn't worry about it. Advantage on mental saves actually doesn't do much for that Totem barbarian - if your save is terrible to begin with, getting to roll twice isn't nearly as effective as if you had a decent modifier.
The initiative bonus is likewise not a huge deal. You can already have a situation where the party can go before all the monsters and vice versa. If they can wipe out your mooks in one turn, it wasn't a hard encounter in the first place.
I mean compare it to something like Oath of the Ancients, or even Vengeance. Watcher is not really any better.
As for the other stuff, the vast majority seems to be how it combos with other things. If we're houseruling here, just outlaw those combos. Say that EB can't stack with Bless, for example. Don't allow BoP to target NPCs or summons. It's just a lot cleaner to identify the abusive cases and outlaw them rather than rewrite the entire power.
One issue I do have with EB is that it has multiplicative scaling. As your prof bonus goes up, it affects more creatures and can be used more times per day. This is pretty unique and makes it kind of ridiculous at high levels. Tying it's uses to Channel Divinity would somewhat fix this and also have it compete with BoP.
One alternate "nerf" to Peace Domain is to disallow them from ever dealing damage, or if they do so they are stunned or something. This would be on theme and they'd need those OP abilities to pull their weight in the party. If that's not enough, don't let them cast nondamaging "attacks" like Banishment either.
As for Twilight Clerics, a lot has been written about how to change it. From my experience playing it, reducing the range of TS to like 15 feet would do a lot. Depending on how you laid out encounters, that alone could be enough most of the time.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
There are some crazy strong subclasses in Tasha's, especially in comparison to PHB and Xanathar's options. I am one of those DMs who really hasn't been a fan of the powercreep in recent releases, and Tasha's content in particular is something that I need players to run by me before I authorize it in my campaign. That said, the only things I've ever banned were the Telepathic and Telekinetic feats because they violate my in-game canon of who has psychic abilities.
As for nerfing...I don't know if I'd do it, personally. I'm a ban-or-adjust kind of DM. Seems more equitable to me. I've got an Eloquence bard in my game and his subclass is a huge pain sometimes, but he's a forever DM and I trust him not to abuse his Universal Speech ability to turn my combat encounters into Naruto détentes. I also have a powergamer, so I watch his builds very carefully and tailor my encounters accordingly - not to counter him, but to provide him a challenge that won't wipe the rest of the party. It's a little more work for me, but it keeps the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. I also find it easier to beef up the relatively underpowered characters with magic items so they are on par with the OP character. That way, the powergamers feel mighty and not like you're out to kneecap them, the other players are at a comparable level, and the encounters can scale upward to make for a more balanced party challenge.
Game Developers (Both D&D and other games) prefer to buff more often than nerf. Players are more welcome to boosts to weak features than nerfs to powerful ones. For a while, WotC's solution to fix weak classes has been to give them powerful subclasses (Looking at you, Hexblade). This sort of worsens the issue by invalidating the other subclasses or even upsetting the balance even further. But they are making steps towards fixing balance, just through a different method.
The Optional Rules presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything are specifically designed with power creep in mind. The involved player and DM decide together whether or not a character can use these optional rules. You add them for weaker characters, and ignore them for more powerful ones, thereby balancing the party a bit more. It's the same logic as granting less-powerful characters more magical items, or throwing more powerful monsters at the party as a whole.
That being said, D&D 5.5e should hopefully fix some of the power creep, so one the best things we can do is provide feedback to Wizards of the Coast.
I think your take on the Peace Domain seems balanced and within flavor.
That said, I would make a case to ban the sub-classes instead of nerfing them, if you're not comfortable playing with them.
My point is: if you nerf them, most people will not play them anyway, and you have put energy into building something that is going to be pretty much useless and, those few (I talk from the experience of someone that had nerfed the early game of Moon Druid back in the day, very few people end up playing a nerfed sub-class) who end up playing, will feel like crap, always looking at what they could've been instead of what they are.
The fact that the benchmark exist is always going to be a looming shadow over the nerfed character and will end up taking some of the fun out of it.
If, even with the ban, a player is insisting on playing the sub-class, because of flavor (which I've never seeing happening, but might happen). I would suggest to build the nerfs with them, they need to have ownership of the decisions to not be hindered by them, you know?
Anyway, those are my two cents on the matter ^^
I encourage you to allow these as is, but tell any player that wants to play them that you are concerned about them and may need to tune them down a bit if they seem out of hand.
A lot of these are strong be seem better on paper than in practice, and some of them seem like you are misreading the effects.
For example your concept of emboldening bond being a free bless just isn't accurate. It's really good but it can only be used once a round, bless is used every time you make any of those roles. It can only hit 2 people at lv 1.
Twilight sanctuary is very powerful but also needs the party to be in a 30ft radius with the cleric in the middle. I doesn't take much imagination for someone to figure out how being grouped up can have significant downsides.
A couple of notes on your examples:
Emboldening bond is once per turn not once per round, so while if you have extra attack you can only use it on one attack, and it only affects one eldritch blast beam if you use it on your attack you can still use it for a save on each bad guy's turn. So while it is not strictly better than bless for many party members the restriction may may rarely come up (e.g rogues and most spell casters) but will make a big difference to a high level fighter.
A 30 ft radius is a big area in an open area a party of 5 can be 30ft North, South, East and West of the Cleric which is spread out enough to avoid most of the risks of being grouped together. In a confined area the party are likely ot be within 30ft of the cleric anyway. (Someone suggested the radius is reduced to 15ft and this does bring about the risks of being grouped together).
Having said that I am not concerned about Balm of Peace, channel divinities are what a clerics most powerful ability (at least at low levels) and Balm of peace is far less powerful than twilight sanctuary. While Balm of peace is more powerful than a life cleric's preserve life at low levels by about level 8 preseve life is likely to do more healing and the extra flexibility menas it is prbable the more useful feature after about level 5. Bal of peace does very similar healing to preyer of healing but it will be rare you can cast it on the whole party in combat, only taking an action is a BIG benefit so it is a fair bit better than a level 2 spell. Light clerics also have a low level loaded channel divinity 2d10+2 is significant damage at level 2, about the same as a 2nd level burning hands or a shatter but radiance of dawn is a 30ft radius, rarely resisted radiant damage and it doesn't affect your friends, (My DM put outr level 2 party against about a dozen kobalds one radiant of dawn wiped them all out).
I have heard protective bond isn't as powerful as it sounds as the cost of a reaction is quite significant by the time you get to level 6. So overall I don't think a single class peace cleric is that much of a problem. Where peace cleric is insane is as a single level dip for a high level character (When a level 19 monk gains his last level compare getting monk 20 with peace cleric 1)
A couple of mnths ago tere was a forum debating the most powerful subclass opinions were spilit between twilight cleric and Chronurgy Wizard (guess WotC want to sell EGtW as well as Tasha's)
I don't want to assume your line of thinking. Now, are you really looking at this closely, though? Pallys already get Aura of Protection automatically at Level 6, which boosts ALL saving throws of creatures w/in 10 feet by a number equal to the Paladin's CHA modifier. We can expect, therefore, that any Barbarian + Paladin melee tag-team will already boost the likely -1 modifier to +1 modifier that the Barbarian has in their INT/WIS/CHA. Advantage to every mental stat save plus the +3/+4 CHA bonus from the Paladin is significant. Not enough to pass muster every time, but VERY useful.
Re-reading it, I sort of agree. I still think that boosting initiative of multiple PCs above 4th level can be quite strong. Think about Assassin Rogues and Gloomstalker Rangers, for example. The main thing that prevents Aura of the Sentinels from being outright OP is: A) most Paladins are bad at Stealth and B) the builds that benefit the most from going before enemy initiative-wise are the most likely to scout ahead and won't stick close by the Paladin at the outset of combat.
Otherwise, I agree with much of the rest of your suggestions about ways to limit the OP-ness of those sub-classes.
.
I do see your point. Pre-emptively banning a subclass might make some players uncomfortable. Which is why I'd prefer to nerf the subclass rather than ban outright. Yes, nerfing might also make some people dislike playing the sub-class, but when there are Multiple powergamers on YouTube outright telling them that these subclasses can be OP? In these situations, I want to let them know upfront that I'm not comfortable with the power level combos of certain subclasses. I'm not in favor of stopping multi-classing because that is a general sort of freedom-to-innovate that I want to encourage. I want creative play at my table, but I don't want builds or multi-player combos that can be used all the time that trivialize what should be level-appropriate encounters.
The thing is, I prefer running campaigns without a lot of magic items or mostly providing once-and-done items like scrolls/potions or stuff that is more useful outside of combat than in combat (excluding basic magic weapons, which are almost required after level 5 anyway). I don't like spending a lot of time on magic item tables and the like unless I'm looking for a plot-relevant item to provide to the players as a whole. So relying of dispensing of magic goodies to players just to balance the OP subclass with other subclasses doesn't work for me.
Another thing I've realized is that it's very hard to balance power levels with certain things. Look at Step of the Night again. Compare that to the Moon Druid. For the longest time, the argument was that Moon Druids should not be able to cast spells while Wild-Shaped. Veeeeery limited spell use for a Druid while using one of their iconic features, which can last for hours and which the Druid gets only 2 of until Level 20. Both Druids and Clerics are primary prepared casters. But suddenly you get a Cleric subclass (Twilight) that can fly at full move speed while casting spells from 6th level onwards. If I have a Moon Druid player in the party, how do I balance that? The flexibility added to spellcasting while flying (no concentration for the Twilight Cleric) should not be underestimated.
One other thing to point out about all of the subclasses under discussion is that they make the other players awesome too. If I ever have issues with a powergamer in my groups, I urge them to play a support class and optimize their ability to make the other players more effective. This is different than optimizing other roles for two reasons:
I don't think it's an accident that the subclasses in Tasha's that are OP happen to be support classes. I think the game handles strong support much better than it handles strong damage dealing or "tanking." And support tends to be the least desired role for many groups, so it makes sense that those options might be made a bit more enticing.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
No need. Just say NO to Tasha's. A whole book that is 'optional'? Really?! Try Unearthed Arcana OP slushpile of unplaytested material. That's the point. It was intended to break 5e and did. So you'd hafta buy 6e. Take the hint. If you just say RAW/ no optional, DM saves $$$ on book that should never have been published. Shameful, WOTC. Shame on you. Sad.
I do not understand the "low magic concept" or the subclass too strong concept - as the DM you can stack any number of creatures with any number of skills and spells, any number of environmental hazards. It is never a contest - the DM can always structure a combat to TPK a party. ALWAYS - and that incidentally is not the object of combat it should be fun and challenging with a chance of failure but a better chance of success.
If players are playing D&D they should have access to all the official content ---races, subclasses, skills, spells, (level appropriate magic items) - that is what makes it fun for many players.
Arbitrarily nerfing things or not allowing them to have magic gear is depriving your groups of a significant portion of the game - its in large part why I hate adventure league, the arbitrary well this race or whatever is not allowed.
Lol. Hyperbole aside. I'd just like to mention that your post is one opinion. As another opinion, personally, I really don't have any issues running a game with ANY of the Tasha's classes. None of them are broken though some do have features that are better than the subclasses from the 2014 PHB - Twilight cleric is one example, though even it certainly doesn't "break 5e".
Whether a game is fun depends on one's personal definition. Keep in mind that the GM is also a player, even if they do not have a PC in game. If the GM is not having fun, why keep GMing? Also, not all players appreciate being able to beat encounters while being carried by just one character.
The other problem that crops up is that having one OP character raises the difficulty curve so much that it may create balance problems for the group. CR is always just an approximation, so combat prep can get skewed by one significantly OP character:
A) If the player with the OP character cannot attend game session at the last minute but everybody else still wants to play, all the combat encounters must be re-planned last minute or else it easily becomes a TPK for the party. A lot of work for the GM.
B) A near-TPK situation is also much more likely if the OP character is unprepared or is separated from the rest of the party, who must now deal with the over-tuned monsters prepared for a higher CR than they can handle without the OP character being nearby.
Last but not least, combat tends to become very predictable if PCs cast the same spells/use the same game-breaking abilities every game despite being high level characters. Novelty is what makes games interesting to a lot of people.