I just want to get an idea of how other DMs are planning on using the (optional) class features and feature variants in their campaigns moving forward and hear why you are doing it the way you are.
All the preview articles I've read (here, ENWorld, GITP) seem to be complaining about power creep, so I've decided that for the game I'm running (currently only allowing PHB, SCAG and XGtE), we won't be using anything from the new book.
In a few months, after people have used the book and posted about their experiences, I'll revisit my decision.
I'm allowing basically everything. This might be a little off topic but....I no longer care about the PCs being "too powerful" (within officially established limits) as I came to the realization that the game isn't about me, it's about the PCs and not allowing certain things was a control issue I was having. I like adding homebrew to my monsters so I should have no problem challenging the players if the new content turns out to be unbalanced. I don't think they will complain about kicking too much @$$ and it no longer bothers me if they steamroll an encounter.
Personally I like a lot of what is in the book, the more I look through it the more things I find I don't entirely like. But I've seen a lot of people complaining pretty heavily and it looks like they just feel miserable and I don't want to feel like that, lol.
I'm letting them have it for now if they want it, as it's all about the players having fun. It'll also make up for me increasing the difficulty of certain future encounters to make them more 'fun'.
Im trying everything. After all, how can i know what is going to work and improve the game if I don't try it? Most of the class stuff is additive anyway, so it can be put on top of existing characters with little issue.
All of it. Like others said, powercreep is a non-issue as I already design encounters to match the party's power and we're all mature enough to pass up combos that would cause great imbalances within the party.
I've allowed all of the options for new characters and I've gone back and retroactively allowed a single replacement to existing characters. The caveat for pre-existing is they do not earn the new option until they have leveled up (all 4th level at about 4.6K point so it is not an immediate reward.) and spend 200gp for the training in a big city.
To me, the players, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, and Wizard new options are not a problem or I see a power creep for these classes.
I will require the player to convince me that they should be able to use a specific optional feature. But there will be a list that I will allow without a discussion.
I'm allowing them in general, for the classes in my campaign (Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer). A couple of them are significantly worse than our houserule, so I banned those and kept the houserule (e.g., changing 1 cantrip ever 4 levels -- I already allow 1 per level-up... using the Tasha version would be a significant nerf). The new spells seem fine... The ranger player is not certain she wants to use most of the new features other than Favored Foe, because she has already liked the features the new ones replaced. But I have left it up to her. The rest of the class options for those classes seem fine.
Some other things I have had to outright ban, like all the Psonics subclasses (I do Psionics a different way in my campaign and these classes do not fit my concept), and several of the feats, and the blue dream spell. But mostly it's "DM permission" like any other optional rule.
I do have a footnote on my house rule Tasha document I'm about to send out, for many things, saying "significant RP required." Like Shadow touched -- you're not taking that baby unless your character has been in and significantly impacted by the Shadowfell.
One thing I dislike about the Tasha stuff is the optional rules are very tempting to players because they give really good stat bonuses or new cool things you can do, but most of them do NOT make in character sense without substantial RP. These things need to be in-character or I will say no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I'm allowing them in general, for the classes in my campaign (Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer). A couple of them are significantly worse than our houserule, so I banned those and kept the houserule (e.g., changing 1 cantrip ever 4 levels -- I already allow 1 per level-up... using the Tasha version would be a significant nerf). The new spells seem fine... The ranger player is not certain she wants to use most of the new features other than Favored Foe, because she has already liked the features the new ones replaced. But I have left it up to her. The rest of the class options for those classes seem fine.
Some other things I have had to outright ban, like all the Psonics subclasses (I do Psionics a different way in my campaign and these classes do not fit my concept), and several of the feats, and the blue dream spell. But mostly it's "DM permission" like any other optional rule.
I do have a footnote on my house rule Tasha document I'm about to send out, for many things, saying "significant RP required." Like Shadow touched -- you're not taking that baby unless your character has been in and significantly impacted by the Shadowfell.
One thing I dislike about the Tasha stuff is the optional rules are very tempting to players because they give really good stat bonuses or new cool things you can do, but most of them do NOT make in character sense without substantial RP. These things need to be in-character or I will say no.
Yep, I ran into this with my player who is a Ranger, and chose to use Deft Explorer, not so much about the movement bonus but he wanted to have a better Stealth than the group rogue, so that was a little offputting BUT the character has been good about languages in the game so I allowed him taking the optional feature based on getting two new languages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just want to get an idea of how other DMs are planning on using the (optional) class features and feature variants in their campaigns moving forward and hear why you are doing it the way you are.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I'm not.
All the preview articles I've read (here, ENWorld, GITP) seem to be complaining about power creep, so I've decided that for the game I'm running (currently only allowing PHB, SCAG and XGtE), we won't be using anything from the new book.
In a few months, after people have used the book and posted about their experiences, I'll revisit my decision.
I'm allowing basically everything. This might be a little off topic but....I no longer care about the PCs being "too powerful" (within officially established limits) as I came to the realization that the game isn't about me, it's about the PCs and not allowing certain things was a control issue I was having. I like adding homebrew to my monsters so I should have no problem challenging the players if the new content turns out to be unbalanced. I don't think they will complain about kicking too much @$$ and it no longer bothers me if they steamroll an encounter.
Personally I like a lot of what is in the book, the more I look through it the more things I find I don't entirely like. But I've seen a lot of people complaining pretty heavily and it looks like they just feel miserable and I don't want to feel like that, lol.
I'm letting them have it for now if they want it, as it's all about the players having fun. It'll also make up for me increasing the difficulty of certain future encounters to make them more 'fun'.
All of it. I'm not afraid of powercreep, it just lets me throw more heinous things at my player.
Im trying everything. After all, how can i know what is going to work and improve the game if I don't try it? Most of the class stuff is additive anyway, so it can be put on top of existing characters with little issue.
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."
All of it. Like others said, powercreep is a non-issue as I already design encounters to match the party's power and we're all mature enough to pass up combos that would cause great imbalances within the party.
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
I've allowed all of the options for new characters and I've gone back and retroactively allowed a single replacement to existing characters. The caveat for pre-existing is they do not earn the new option until they have leveled up (all 4th level at about 4.6K point so it is not an immediate reward.) and spend 200gp for the training in a big city.
To me, the players, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, and Wizard new options are not a problem or I see a power creep for these classes.
I will require the player to convince me that they should be able to use a specific optional feature. But there will be a list that I will allow without a discussion.
I'm allowing them in general, for the classes in my campaign (Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer). A couple of them are significantly worse than our houserule, so I banned those and kept the houserule (e.g., changing 1 cantrip ever 4 levels -- I already allow 1 per level-up... using the Tasha version would be a significant nerf). The new spells seem fine... The ranger player is not certain she wants to use most of the new features other than Favored Foe, because she has already liked the features the new ones replaced. But I have left it up to her. The rest of the class options for those classes seem fine.
Some other things I have had to outright ban, like all the Psonics subclasses (I do Psionics a different way in my campaign and these classes do not fit my concept), and several of the feats, and the blue dream spell. But mostly it's "DM permission" like any other optional rule.
I do have a footnote on my house rule Tasha document I'm about to send out, for many things, saying "significant RP required." Like Shadow touched -- you're not taking that baby unless your character has been in and significantly impacted by the Shadowfell.
One thing I dislike about the Tasha stuff is the optional rules are very tempting to players because they give really good stat bonuses or new cool things you can do, but most of them do NOT make in character sense without substantial RP. These things need to be in-character or I will say no.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Yep, I ran into this with my player who is a Ranger, and chose to use Deft Explorer, not so much about the movement bonus but he wanted to have a better Stealth than the group rogue, so that was a little offputting BUT the character has been good about languages in the game so I allowed him taking the optional feature based on getting two new languages.