Hey peeps, i´m trying to figure out what races i´m gonna use for the new subclasses in Tasha´s cauldron of Everything for adventure league, anybody who can help with some cool race builds? I already got an idea for an gnome battle smith
Considering that racial ASIs can be shuffled around into pretty much whatever you want, so long as you're not stacking them for a +3 or +4, you can pick whatever you want.
Heck, you could have picked whatever you wanted before and it wouldn't really matter that much.
I'm kind of waiting to see how Tasha's gets treated in terms of +1. One rumor I heard was that it will be lumped in with XGtE as a combined +1.
Looks like Tasha's is a separate +1 ...
"When creating and advancing your character, you can use any race option listed below. You can also use any of the class rules options for your character (including spells and feats), from the PH and one other product listed below. We refer to this campaign rule as "Player’s Handbook + 1". It is important to note that your choice of race is not restricted by PH + 1.
Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes
Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything
Volo’s Guide to Monsters
Xanathar’s Guide to Everything"
Some possibilities ...
1) Tasha's is a separate +1
2) Tasha's and Xanathar's as a combined +1
3) Change to a new system for AL characters like season 10 where race options for the season are specified, allow PHB, XGtE and TCoE as the only sources for character creation and dump the +1 rule since it won't be needed. SCAG, EEPC, MToF and Volo's wouldn't be used for AL play except for the race options available by season which is pretty much all they are used for now since a lot of the content has been republished in XGtE and TCoE.
Anyway, with the racial stat flexibility rules, you can basically get any race to work well with any class. Half elves and mountain dwarves have a bit of a benefit with a total +4 stat bonus to start. Dwarves also get a large number of proficiencies that can be swapped. Race choice becomes a bit of a flavor choice in this case.
At the moment, that's accurate, but I think that's likely to change or at least have exceptions. It would be awkward to hold the core class feature variants (enhancements in most cases) behind using Tasha's. It'd also be pretty messy for to it end up where there are a chunk of Artificer spells that no AL Artificer can learn (due to Artificer being in Tasha's and a number of their spells being in Xanathar's).
I'm half-expecting them to go the "It's a +1, except for certain things", which will almost certainly be confusing, but that hasn't stopped them before.
That's an old version, but regardless, I've read them. I'm asking what you are saying it covers? "That" is ambiguous.
How is presenting the document, and everything detailed within, even remotely ambiguous? Is there a specific question you have? I'll do my best if you ask, but DDAL has basically worked the same way since its inception so I honestly don't get the confusion.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is included in the PH + 1. This means that, if you use Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as your supplemental tome, then you can use all the options inside. This also means that, if you instead choose a different book, then you cannot use the options presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Say you want to play a Monster Slayer Ranger. Well, then you can't swap out the Ranger's Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, or Hide in Plain Sight. That said, there are two notable exceptions.
Some of the races presented in Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes appear to be "free" and do not count against the PH + 1 restriction. But if you wanted to play as a goblinoid or sea elf, for example, you would be limited to just that book.
Appendix 1: Customizing Your Origin in D&D seems to be a preview/reprint of material that we can expect to find in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything; meaning some degree of additional character flexibility is allowed. Want to play a Woof Elf monk who trades out their bonus weapon proficiencies for four tools and becomes a Drunken Master at 3rd level? Good news, because you can!
What was ambiguous was what query you were replying to.
For example, if you were replying to my post, posting the document without additional specificity wouldn't make much sense as my comments were stating -- yes, currently Tasha's counts as your +1, but I have expectations that there will be exceptions added when the book is actually out. I thought perhaps you were going to point out the document specifically addresses the problems that I expect them to make changes for (it doesn't, yet). Rather, it appears your comment was intended for the OP.
Now do you understand the confusion in the context of the thread?
What was ambiguous was what query you were replying to.
For example, if you were replying to my post, posting the document without additional specificity wouldn't make much sense as my comments were stating -- yes, currently Tasha's counts as your +1, but I have expectations that there will be exceptions added when the book is actually out. I thought perhaps you were going to point out the document specifically addresses the problems that I expect them to make changes for (it doesn't, yet). Rather, it appears your comment was intended for the OP.
Now do you understand the confusion in the context of the thread?
Well, I was responding to you. Sorry that I didn't quote you. I didn't think it was necessary.
What was ambiguous was what query you were replying to.
For example, if you were replying to my post, posting the document without additional specificity wouldn't make much sense as my comments were stating -- yes, currently Tasha's counts as your +1, but I have expectations that there will be exceptions added when the book is actually out. I thought perhaps you were going to point out the document specifically addresses the problems that I expect them to make changes for (it doesn't, yet). Rather, it appears your comment was intended for the OP.
Now do you understand the confusion in the context of the thread?
Well, I was responding to you. Sorry that I didn't quote you. I didn't think it was necessary.
Well, then I have to disagree with you that the ALPG covers the specific problems I expect them to deal with upon Tasha's release.
What was ambiguous was what query you were replying to.
For example, if you were replying to my post, posting the document without additional specificity wouldn't make much sense as my comments were stating -- yes, currently Tasha's counts as your +1, but I have expectations that there will be exceptions added when the book is actually out. I thought perhaps you were going to point out the document specifically addresses the problems that I expect them to make changes for (it doesn't, yet). Rather, it appears your comment was intended for the OP.
Now do you understand the confusion in the context of the thread?
Well, I was responding to you. Sorry that I didn't quote you. I didn't think it was necessary.
Well, then I have to disagree with you that the ALPG covers the specific problems I expect them to deal with upon Tasha's release.
What specific problems? That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now? There's a reason why all of the bonus spells for each archetype have always been found in the Player's Handbook.
What specific problems? That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now? There's a reason why all of the bonus spells for each archetype have always been found in the Player's Handbook.
Because the comparison here isn't tabaxi rangers. It's all rangers. AL would have to justify why no member of a class is allowed to take certain spells that are on their class list. Don't you think it'd be weird if they put a spell on the ranger list that no ranger, ever, was allowed to take in AL?
That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now?
In addition to not being analogous to all races of a class being effected, a season 10 Tabaxi Ranger can learn Zephyr Strike. So your example is a complete fail as that is exactly why we might expect those changes now.
That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now?
In addition to not being analogous to all races of a class being effected, a season 10 Tabaxi Ranger can learn Zephyr Strike. So your example is a complete fail as that is exactly why we might expect those changes now.
I was specifically referring to Seasons 9 and before. Sorry if that wasn't clear before.
Or was I wrong in stating that PHB+1 meant that you could have spells from any book? I was under the impression that only Backgrounds were unrestricted.
What specific problems? That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now? There's a reason why all of the bonus spells for each archetype have always been found in the Player's Handbook.
Because the comparison here isn't tabaxi rangers. It's all rangers. AL would have to justify why no member of a class is allowed to take certain spells that are on their class list. Don't you think it'd be weird if they put a spell on the ranger list that no ranger, ever, was allowed to take in AL?
Oh, for crying out loud...
Before season 9, both VGtM and XGtE would have counted as mutually exclusive parts of the PHB+1 rule. This means a tabaxi anything wouldn't be able to use XGtE, correct? Not even for spell selection?
What specific problems? That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now? There's a reason why all of the bonus spells for each archetype have always been found in the Player's Handbook.
Because the comparison here isn't tabaxi rangers. It's all rangers. AL would have to justify why no member of a class is allowed to take certain spells that are on their class list. Don't you think it'd be weird if they put a spell on the ranger list that no ranger, ever, was allowed to take in AL?
Oh, for crying out loud...
Before season 9, both VGtM and XGtE would have counted as mutually exclusive parts of the PHB+1 rule. This means a tabaxi anything wouldn't be able to use XGtE, correct? Not even for spell selection?
Yes, but Tabaxi don't have spell lists. Classes do. If Tabaxi did have spell lists and some of them were only in Xanathar's, yes we'd have had this conversation back then.
What specific problems? That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now? There's a reason why all of the bonus spells for each archetype have always been found in the Player's Handbook.
Because the comparison here isn't tabaxi rangers. It's all rangers. AL would have to justify why no member of a class is allowed to take certain spells that are on their class list. Don't you think it'd be weird if they put a spell on the ranger list that no ranger, ever, was allowed to take in AL?
Oh, for crying out loud...
Before season 9, both VGtM and XGtE would have counted as mutually exclusive parts of the PHB+1 rule. This means a tabaxi anything wouldn't be able to use XGtE, correct? Not even for spell selection?
Yes, but Tabaxi don't have spell lists. Classes do. If Tabaxi did have spell lists and some of them were only in Xanathar's, yes we'd have had this conversation back then.
Now you're trying to pose a hypothetical that is just...*deep breath*...*rubs temples*
Volo's came out a full year before Xanathar's, so that wouldn't happen unless something was reprinted in XGtE. For example, this did happen with Wall of Water, which was first printed in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion (16 April, 2015). It was then reprinted for Tritons in VGtM a full 19 months later (15 November, 2016), and then again in XGtE another year after that (15 November, 2017). Assuming that Tabaxi even had spells, they would have followed this pattern. Maybe it's better if we followed Tritons, instead.
Spells are considered part of the book they appear in. This means, in previous seasons, if you wanted to use any material native to XGtE you would have had to play as a race unique to the PHB. Ditto for if you wanted to use anything from SCAG; even if it was just Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade. And, as far as anyone knows, this general rule has not changed.
Now, maybe those same spells which appeared in Xanathar's will also see reprints in Tasha's. We don't know, nor should we assume they will be. But Wizard's has done something similar in the past. When they put out the Player's Guide for their Oracle of War DDAL campaign for Eberron, XGtE was deliberately excluded from the book. Everyone who played in that campaign had to do without those spells. WotC is under no obligation to include those 15 spells in Tasha's. And none of the archetype spells are unique to Xanathar's; they're all found in the PHB. So it is possible to play an Artificer without XGtE. And they don't owe you, or anyone else, an explanation for something which may or may not happen, but nonetheless has been consistently applied for 5 years now.
That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now?
In addition to not being analogous to all races of a class being effected, a season 10 Tabaxi Ranger can learn Zephyr Strike. So your example is a complete fail as that is exactly why we might expect those changes now.
I was specifically referring to Seasons 9 and before. Sorry if that wasn't clear before.
Or was I wrong in stating that PHB+1 meant that you could have spells from any book? I was under the impression that only Backgrounds were unrestricted.
No, you did not make it clear that you were talking about season 9 at all...
Yes, spells have been restricted by +1, if they hadn't there wouldn't be an issue. This is a problem that has never existed before. This is the first class printed outside the PHB, so this is the first class to ever have class spells that were 100% inaccessible by the PHB+1 rule. It is a wholly unique problem with no comparison. That is why the prospect of a rule change was brought up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey peeps, i´m trying to figure out what races i´m gonna use for the new subclasses in Tasha´s cauldron of Everything for adventure league, anybody who can help with some cool race builds? I already got an idea for an gnome battle smith
Considering that racial ASIs can be shuffled around into pretty much whatever you want, so long as you're not stacking them for a +3 or +4, you can pick whatever you want.
Heck, you could have picked whatever you wanted before and it wouldn't really matter that much.
I'm kind of waiting to see how Tasha's gets treated in terms of +1. One rumor I heard was that it will be lumped in with XGtE as a combined +1.
Looks like Tasha's is a separate +1 ...
"When creating and advancing your character, you can use any race option listed below. You can also use any of the class rules options for your character (including spells and feats), from the PH and one other product listed below. We refer to this campaign rule as "Player’s Handbook + 1". It is important to note that your choice of race is not restricted by PH + 1.
Some possibilities ...1) Tasha's is a separate +12) Tasha's and Xanathar's as a combined +13) Change to a new system for AL characters like season 10 where race options for the season are specified, allow PHB, XGtE and TCoE as the only sources for character creation and dump the +1 rule since it won't be needed. SCAG, EEPC, MToF and Volo's wouldn't be used for AL play except for the race options available by season which is pretty much all they are used for now since a lot of the content has been republished in XGtE and TCoE.Anyway, with the racial stat flexibility rules, you can basically get any race to work well with any class. Half elves and mountain dwarves have a bit of a benefit with a total +4 stat bonus to start. Dwarves also get a large number of proficiencies that can be swapped. Race choice becomes a bit of a flavor choice in this case.
At the moment, that's accurate, but I think that's likely to change or at least have exceptions. It would be awkward to hold the core class feature variants (enhancements in most cases) behind using Tasha's. It'd also be pretty messy for to it end up where there are a chunk of Artificer spells that no AL Artificer can learn (due to Artificer being in Tasha's and a number of their spells being in Xanathar's).
I'm half-expecting them to go the "It's a +1, except for certain things", which will almost certainly be confusing, but that hasn't stopped them before.
The season 10 DDAL player document already covers that.
Covers what?
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/AL_PGv10_0.pdf
That's an old version, but regardless, I've read them. I'm asking what you are saying it covers? "That" is ambiguous.
How is presenting the document, and everything detailed within, even remotely ambiguous? Is there a specific question you have? I'll do my best if you ask, but DDAL has basically worked the same way since its inception so I honestly don't get the confusion.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is included in the PH + 1. This means that, if you use Tasha's Cauldron of Everything as your supplemental tome, then you can use all the options inside. This also means that, if you instead choose a different book, then you cannot use the options presented in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. Say you want to play a Monster Slayer Ranger. Well, then you can't swap out the Ranger's Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, or Hide in Plain Sight. That said, there are two notable exceptions.
Does that answer your query?
What was ambiguous was what query you were replying to.
For example, if you were replying to my post, posting the document without additional specificity wouldn't make much sense as my comments were stating -- yes, currently Tasha's counts as your +1, but I have expectations that there will be exceptions added when the book is actually out. I thought perhaps you were going to point out the document specifically addresses the problems that I expect them to make changes for (it doesn't, yet). Rather, it appears your comment was intended for the OP.
Now do you understand the confusion in the context of the thread?
Well, I was responding to you. Sorry that I didn't quote you. I didn't think it was necessary.
Well, then I have to disagree with you that the ALPG covers the specific problems I expect them to deal with upon Tasha's release.
What specific problems? That some spells are going to be blocked off from artificers because they might only appear in Xanathar's Guide to Everything? A tabaxi ranger didn't get to learn Zephyr Strike, did they? Under what basis do you expect such a change now? There's a reason why all of the bonus spells for each archetype have always been found in the Player's Handbook.
Because the comparison here isn't tabaxi rangers. It's all rangers. AL would have to justify why no member of a class is allowed to take certain spells that are on their class list. Don't you think it'd be weird if they put a spell on the ranger list that no ranger, ever, was allowed to take in AL?
In addition to not being analogous to all races of a class being effected, a season 10 Tabaxi Ranger can learn Zephyr Strike. So your example is a complete fail as that is exactly why we might expect those changes now.
I was specifically referring to Seasons 9 and before. Sorry if that wasn't clear before.
Or was I wrong in stating that PHB+1 meant that you could have spells from any book? I was under the impression that only Backgrounds were unrestricted.
Oh, for crying out loud...
Before season 9, both VGtM and XGtE would have counted as mutually exclusive parts of the PHB+1 rule. This means a tabaxi anything wouldn't be able to use XGtE, correct? Not even for spell selection?
Yes, but Tabaxi don't have spell lists. Classes do. If Tabaxi did have spell lists and some of them were only in Xanathar's, yes we'd have had this conversation back then.
Now you're trying to pose a hypothetical that is just...*deep breath*...*rubs temples*
Volo's came out a full year before Xanathar's, so that wouldn't happen unless something was reprinted in XGtE. For example, this did happen with Wall of Water, which was first printed in the Elemental Evil Player's Companion (16 April, 2015). It was then reprinted for Tritons in VGtM a full 19 months later (15 November, 2016), and then again in XGtE another year after that (15 November, 2017). Assuming that Tabaxi even had spells, they would have followed this pattern. Maybe it's better if we followed Tritons, instead.
Spells are considered part of the book they appear in. This means, in previous seasons, if you wanted to use any material native to XGtE you would have had to play as a race unique to the PHB. Ditto for if you wanted to use anything from SCAG; even if it was just Booming Blade or Green-Flame Blade. And, as far as anyone knows, this general rule has not changed.
Now, maybe those same spells which appeared in Xanathar's will also see reprints in Tasha's. We don't know, nor should we assume they will be. But Wizard's has done something similar in the past. When they put out the Player's Guide for their Oracle of War DDAL campaign for Eberron, XGtE was deliberately excluded from the book. Everyone who played in that campaign had to do without those spells. WotC is under no obligation to include those 15 spells in Tasha's. And none of the archetype spells are unique to Xanathar's; they're all found in the PHB. So it is possible to play an Artificer without XGtE. And they don't owe you, or anyone else, an explanation for something which may or may not happen, but nonetheless has been consistently applied for 5 years now.
???
No, you did not make it clear that you were talking about season 9 at all...
Yes, spells have been restricted by +1, if they hadn't there wouldn't be an issue. This is a problem that has never existed before. This is the first class printed outside the PHB, so this is the first class to ever have class spells that were 100% inaccessible by the PHB+1 rule. It is a wholly unique problem with no comparison. That is why the prospect of a rule change was brought up.