Tasha's was really the first radical reimagining of DnD 5e.
With the direction Wizards of the Coast are now doubling down with for races, the balance mentalities they are sticking to, and the player-first focus they are taking, this is really not the same game anymore.
I honestly just want them to come out and say Tasha's is the start of 5.5e, and stop tainting 5e with all this. Implementing Tasha's into my table was a nightmare, I modified half of what it gave us and I had to ban half of what was left. The lack of ability to filter content for campaigns on DDB has not helped, as I cannot even prevent unwanted official content from appearing in my players builders. I cant deal with another Tasha's, and I don't want to.
All i want to be able to do is decide what content my players can use, and make it easy for them to abide by those decisions. Whether thats by DDB adding tools to do so on their own, or WotC forcing them to by acknowledging the massive shift in the games direction and structure. I don't want to play this 5.5e that they are giving us, and I don't want to run it. Having the options presented within Tasha's and beyond appear by default in my and my players character builder is stressful, and I just want a way to stop it from happening.
Im not trying to tell WotC how to make their content or who they should be catering to, i couldnt care less about those things anymore. I just want my games to be unaffected by it. DDB was an amazing tool before all this, simple, concise, and any official content i didn't care for was gated off behind settings like MTG and Eberron which had toggles to disable them. I just want to be able to do that with Tasha's and anything else new. Having the character builder be clean and accurately display only the things my players can use will make our lives much easier.
The worst part i fear is, one day (if they don't rebrand) im going to get a new player who wants to use the newer content to make their [REDACTED] character, and im going to have to tell them "no" and they aren't going to understand why. They made their character out of official content, but they aren't allowed to play it? It sounds dumb, because it is dumb. Then, when i tell them they cant have whatever racial ASI they want, and they cant have one of those broken subclasses from tasha's, and they cant have those free additional class features from tasha's, they will just assume im the problem. That im a bigot against self expression and individuality cause i dont allow custom lineages. I just want my games to be balanced consistently, and the balance of the new content is not consistent with the old content.
As DDB have said, they will only do anything if WotC reflect it with the official content, so i think they should just come out and call a duck what it is. Make 5.5e official. And this is not me complaining about being left behind, I want to be left behind, im begging to be left behind. I dont want to see any of this new stuff in my campaign. So please WotC, just draw the line and make DDB draw it too.
Notes: Let's keep posts respectful and courteous to the community, please.
Isn’t it a bit arbitrary to say that anything 5.5 would be bad for you when you don’t even know what you’re going to fully get? So many DMs pick and choose different house rules and homebrew to allow so you have full reign on what can be done.
Just give your players a list of what they can/can’t use. It’s super simple, just say you can select these races, these classes, these subclasses and have them deal with that. If a player gets annoyed at you for the limitations tell them that this is the way that makes it easier for you to DM/is what you want to DM and if they don’t accept that then that is their problem and they should find another group.
Also, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t content sharing already let you pick and choose what to share? If you have Tasha’s, don’t elect to share it.
Content Sharing has several flaws; the first being the toggles for each sourcebook dont stop the content from appearing if the players themselves already own it (some of my players are DMs who buy the content for their own games); and the second being it shares any and all homebrew in every players collection (some of which is made by my players for other campaigns that they run games for).
The issue this has caused for us, is not only does all the official content appear for them, but so do my edited copies of the official content that they are allowed to use, as well as every piece of homebrew one of us has made/added to our collections. The result of this issue is that our character builders are clustered as all hell.
Many have suggested making lists of what my players can and cant do, which i have done, but the problem with that is subjective to my group. I have players with ADHD and Autism, as well as some of them just being casual players who arent that committed to the game to learn everything that in-depth. We originally started using DDB because it was a way to allow them to seamlessly build characters with both official content and my homebrew without pouring through a dozen books and PDF's that they lacked the focus to micromanage. Its easy t say "Just give them a list" but while that might work for most people, it doesnt work for some who have issues with focus or memory.
With recent content releases and some of my players since branching out and becoming DMs themselves, the simple concise character building tool we came for has turned into a cluttered mess of content that our individual content listings can no longer perfectly help them sort through. Not to mention they can't even disable Tasha's content like they can with Eberron and MTG content. Im constantly getting questions about subclasses and races that are not mine, and several of my players cant build characters without my help now. The character builder is just too clustered for them now, and i can't disable the things that they cannot use (unwanted homebrew and official content alike).
All i really would like now is a way to pick and choose which content gets shown in my players builders. I would like to choose who's collections can contribute homebrew to the campaign, and i would like to choose which spells, feats, races, and subclasses can and can't be used from official sources. And most importantly, i would like these choices to be enforced by the campaign, preventing the unwanted options from appearing in the builders for those characters (not all their characters, just the characters they have added to my campaign).
I just want my players to have an easy time building characters again. All this new content, coupled with a lack of tools to ban/allow content on a piece by piece basis for campaigns, has lead to the character builder being hard for some of them to use. So i would hope WotC would just call this new content 5.5e, and force DDB to section it off.
Just running through the character generator I don't see how Tasha's messes with character generation at all unless you activate it. You can sure well disable optional class features and customize your origin. You can do exactly what you're complaining you can't. You want to control it even more piecemeal than before, but control to the point of spells and subclasses had to have been an issue well before Tasha's. At the end of the day you'll have to do the same thing people who don't use DDB do, they have to say "at my table these things are allowed. if you want to do something that is not one of these things, you can ask, but I probably won't grant the request." When you get a question about something you don't allow, you have to simply say "I don't allow that in my game." It sounds like they're buying books you don't use. That would happen whether you were using DDB or not.
DMing can try patience. But the partitioning your requesting from WotC and the further granular subclass and spell control you'd like to see from DDB I think goes above and beyond the D&D brands effort for broadest appeal. WotC, and its DDB's licensee to D&D gives you the tools to play the D&D you want to play. But making those tools into the D&D you want to play is on you and your group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Just running through the character generator I don't see how Tasha's messes with character generation at all unless you activate it. You can sure well disable optional class features and customize your origin. You can do exactly what you're complaining you can't. You want to control it even more piecemeal than before, but control to the point of spells and subclasses had to have been an issue well before Tasha's. At the end of the day you'll have to do the same thing people who don't use DDB do, they have to say "at my table these things are allowed. if you want to do something that is not one of these things, you can ask, but I probably won't grant the request." When you get a question about something you don't allow, you have to simply say "I don't allow that in my game." It sounds like they're buying books you don't use. That would happen whether you were using DDB or not.
DMing can try patience. But the partitioning your requesting from WotC and the further granular subclass and spell control you'd like to see from DDB I think goes above and beyond the D&D brands effort for broadest appeal. WotC, and its DDB's licensee to D&D gives you the tools to play the D&D you want to play. But making those tools into the D&D you want to play is on you and your group.
Let me try and put this into perspective;
Step one - is choose any race that isnt custom lineage, isnt any of the whacky races from weird sources, isnt particular races like satyr or yuan-ti cause they whack, isnt any homebrew race i didn't make, isnt certain subraces like those from wildmount, but CAN be certain hombrew races but not the random ones appearing from other peoples collections. Not to mention i have revisions to some offiicial races, some of which appear under their races groups, others dont because DDB doesnt have race groups for every official race for some reason.
Step two - is not just "choose a class", it is also choose a subclass, many of which from certain sources are banned, some of which from the same sources are allowed, and others have been modified by myself which appear alongside the official listing because something else in the same source as the official lsiting is allowed, also here are my homebrew subclasses that you can use, but there are also half a dozen subclasses from other peoples campaigns mixed in there cause i cant stop that from happening. You also need to pick spells, which suffer from all the same issues as subclasses. And then feats as well, which have the same issues, and the added issues that not all races have race groups, so my homebrew racial feats for minotaurs and centaurs and what have you cannot be prerequisited correctly all appear to every character regardless of race.
Step three - is pretty simple, we use standard array, no complaints.
step four - i use races from ravnica and items from eberron so all of that appears in their options, not to mention the homebrew ones from other DMs campaigns that i cant stop from appearing
Step five - there are hoards and droves of magic items from every source that i allow, and items from every source that i disallow. The "add equipment" section is the easiest way to search for items your character can use, as it filters by proficiency and displays my homebrew items. The issue is, it also displays all the other DMs homebrew items, as well as the items i ban from any given sourcebook.
-----------------
So it really isnt as simple as you make it out to be. I have made lists of everything that is allowed, ive even gone through the builder and highlighted things that arent allowed. This has just turned some of my players off from homebrew content. Its too much for them. They can't handle the information overload. They would rather just play without anything special. This is the problem. I need a way to make the character builder not clustered for them. I need a way to make it so they only see what they can use, so all of their options are there and they don't have to pour through 3 pages of lists of things they can and can't use for every single choice they make when building a character.
And i do understand that all that is a bigger problem than can be fixed with putting the new content under its own lable, but it would help, and it would be easier to do than the make the in-depth content filter for campaigns.
It is simple. What you're describing sounds like what any DM may go through when they put limitations on what sources a player puts into the game. The difference is a matter of perspective. I see what you're describing as frankly routine DMing that may try some patience. You find it insufferable.
And again, the biggest problems you're outlining have been around for multiple volumes of D&D books prior to Tasha's. WotC has made it fairly clear they're not interested in compartmentalizing new content as 5.5 at the moment. I don't see DDB taking the initiative to tier content to the level of control you want. So there's one thing you can control and that's how you respond to the environment you DM in.
There are just more people who want the books easily integrated, not segregated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
People are upset that races are featuring more diverse options and allowing folks to make characters that aren't stereotypical depictions. Dwarves that can intelligence based instead of constitution based, that kind of stuff. There's literally nothing else to it.
Why they are complaining on a forum not controlled or anyway affecting wizards of the coast is beyond me.
To be fair, the OP in this thread has issues with the expansion of options presented to players actually prior to Tasha's (but Tasha's gets scapegoated because of the options for floating ASIs I guess) and thus is asking for DDB to grant them greater control over players access to content in their game than content sharing presently allows. My take is the grievance sounds like DMs burden. Sure I'd like more granular control over content sharing, like I'd love to be able to grant players access to some but not all players or poster maps in an adventure without unlocking the whole adventure book. But negotiating characters or overruling characters is just part of DMing.
And FWIW, for a site that while not the main producer of D&D is a central hub for many people for "access" to D&D, I have no qualms about people talking here about what they like and don't like about the game. It's just the manner, or manners or more accurately lack thereof, and the incessant rehashing that gets to be a bit much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Massive changes have been made which basically allows a player to put the stat bonuses anywhere they want to, so for example you could move the +2 to strength that a half orc gets to intelligence allowing you to play an optimised wizard. You can also change what your starting proficiencies, languages, tools and some of the specific racial advantages. This is really noticeable if you play a mountain dwarf with two +2 stat bonuses and battleaxe, handaxe, light hammer, and warhammer, light and medium armor - if you go a class that gives you simple, martial, armour and shield then you could swap out all of those from the racial abilities for other tools, and combined with the racial tool and a tool from a background, you could start with 8 tool proficiencies of your choice, then when you take say paladin / fighter / ranger /bard etc you get all of the armour and weapon proficiencies back. Meaning you just gained 8 tool proficiencies at no cost.
A lot of people are saying that this is good for the game, you see them screaming and shouting about every subject known to man all across social media, having their little temper tantrums. But I call it a power gamers wet dream. Because now I can play a mountain dwarf articifer with 11 tool proficiencies, a +2 stat bonus to int and maybe con or dex, light and medium armour, shields and simple weapons - which is all they need because their primary optimised build will be using a hand crossbow anyway.
It allows people to play builds that would never have previously been played because they were thought of as unoptimised, or sub par because the stat bonuses were in the wrong place for that race/class combo. As a player, and an unrepentant power gamer I love it. I just wish people would stop saying it is all about adding variety and diversity and call it what it is.
A players ability to influence the game will vary significantly based on the game being played, the experience and ability of the DM and the other players in the game. I run 2 regular long term games, in one the game is very much story based and I will change things a lot to keep it story driven - stat blocks will vary massively from one enemy to another, some creatures are more powerful and have higher cr's based on my changes, somethings might have more inclination to parley than get down to a fight, every situation is different and all of the players enjoy it. So far through their tactics and my careful management there hasn't been a single character death - though some very close calls. In the other game I run, there is very little story, it is mostly hack and slash with occasional social encounters to break up the combat. The action is brutal, and the players know that I will show them no mercy if they mess up. Dice rolls and rocks fall. So far they have had 4 character deaths out of 5 players.
So yes, how I build my character can have no relation to how difficult you make the game, if you know how to manipulate the game and adjust on the fly. But there are dozens of threads on here from inexperienced GM's complaining about 'broken characters' in their games, or players who are unhappy that their beautifully thought out characters with pages and pages of backstory don't seem to be able to keep up with or do anything like the great things that their party member can do. A mixed group of players some of whom understand how to make effective characters and some of whom play '******' characters because it has a great backstory will cause no end of headaches - for the DM and the players.
Yes, in the main I definitely agree with that statement as it is usually true. However there are occasions where an experienced player takes the leap to being a DM for the first time. I have had that situation recently where one of the regular players who is in both my games has decided to start running his own. Having never done it before he was nervous but he has done a really good job of it and we are all enjoying it. But we are also good friends and don't abuse things. For example I have chosen a very unusual race / class combo resulting in some unoptimised choices of feat and weapons etc, but then optimised it massively to make it as good as it can be. So I could have made it much better, taken a medium size race instead of small, used a heavy weapon with PAM or GWM etc but by choosing a small size and going sword and board I kept him fun and still as powerful as the other characters. But it wouldn't have been possible without Tasha's book to make the character. I also really like him, he has the potential to become one of my most favourite characters ever.
Massive changes have been made which basically allows a player to put the stat bonuses anywhere they want to... You can also change what your starting proficiencies, languages, tools and some of the specific racial advantages.
Massive changes? Really? You can move stat bonuses and play with some proficiencies. These are not massive changes, they are quite small. They can be used very effectively by power gamers, you are right, but so can many other race/class/subclass/multiclass/feat options available just in the core 3 books and are just as likely to make life difficult for an inexperienced DM.
The most "massive" change is that role players who want to play something different don't get mechanically hamstrung by those choices. The can play something weird and wonderful at the same table as a power gamer and not feel those choices have made them significantly worse. They don't have to feel constrained by the stereotype of the race anymore. They don't have to play the dumb, strong Orc or the graceful, intelligent elf.
I very much disagree with the OP that the "game is changing radically".
I think TCoE exists because nobody seems to know that Chapter 9 of the DMG exists. We've always been able to control the settings in the game - adding, removing, changing things.
Part of the problem I think is from people making the assumption that, if official/popular services can't do it, it's not allowed in the rules... except that rules essentially state that anything's possible and nobody is restricted to printed content. It's weird because so many campaigns people play were never in print - all invented outside the published content.
The only new direction here is that 5e said, "Do whatever and here are some ideas," but a good chunk of players seem to say, "No. Tell me what to do, and while you're at it, validate me." We don't need Hasbro to validate us. They gave us the tools to do it ourselves right from the start of 5e.
How does one "fix" something that lets DMs design their campaigns however they desire? The only possible change from "do whatever" is "don't do whatever".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I will say, I wouldn't mind a more advanced slider system that allows you to control what specific content you can choose characters from. Perhaps under an advanced tab of some kind. Something that you'd need to look for in the character creator. I think it would be nice to be able to toggle in and out of specific books that way. More control (for me at least) is generally better.
However I fully understand that it is not a priority and it would defiantly be more of a "oh cool. they added this. That's useful" sort of thing. Id much rather they get books better integrated into the system, get he online dice roller finished, or enable some sort of aid for the visually impaired into Dnd Beyond before Id want this sort of control.
The worst part i fear is, one day (if they don't rebrand) im going to get a new player who wants to use the newer content to make their [REDACTED] character, and im going to have to tell them "no" and they aren't going to understand why. They made their character out of official content, but they aren't allowed to play it? It sounds dumb, because it is dumb.
D&D has always been this way. You tell your players "there are no dwarves in my setting," so they don't roll up a dwarf. No artificers. No feats. Happens all the time.
The official Adventure League games restrict content, and the official recommendation is PHB+1. Just declaring books off limits is neither dramatic nor unprecedented. Campaigns with everything allowed can definitely loose thematic tone and kill the setting you're going for depending on the game.
If you believe Tasha's or whatever book is destroying 5e and can write essays about it here, surely you can explain it to your players too. This is all Session 0 stuff.
Sounds like Tasha's isn't the issue but the homebrew options. Just nix the homebrew and play the game as written. If there is official content you don't want them to use then just tell them not to use it and after they create their characters you just verify it is the way you want it. I personally don't like to restrict my players as I would not want to be restricted myself other than you can only use official 5e stuff, no homebrew.
Point 1.) DDB giving DMs the power to turn a player's own purchased books off is actively against their business interests ("you bought Tasha's Cauldron? Whoops - you're in my campaign, and I have TCE turned off - now you can't use it period unless you leave my campaign. So not sorry for you!")
Point 2.) Midnight is right - this is just what happens when a DM uses this tool. Otherwise you're asking a player to never do or create anything in the system. Simply arrange with your players the idea that each piece of homebrew content is tagged with the player's name (i.e. most of my non-public homebrew has "YUREI HOMEBREW" Prominently displayed at the top, with instructions for use). That way players can see at a glance whether something is your homebrew and thus permissible, or someone else's homebrew and thus evil and awful and completely against the spirit of D&D.
Point 3.) Most importantly...balance isn't that important in this game. Unpopular (if correct) opinion: party size is the only "balance" point that can truly wreck your game. Unless you have a masterclass munchkin able to bend and twist the rules of D&D like an actual wizard - and I refuse to believe people who find the basic character builder system Too Complicated are going to be numbers sorcerers - it doesn't really matter which class or character options your players take. The game's "balance" is already super nebulous and wobbly, the only balance you need concern yourself with is intra-party parity. And even that can be left wobbly far more often than a lot of DMs think.
Midnight has the right of it. What this sounds like is you being upset that DDB offers your players options you wish it wouldn't. So do physical books. Prepare a list of allowed species/subspecies, classes, and subclasses. Give it to your players. Say "If it's not on this list, you can't have it. I don't care what DDB says exists; if it isn't on this document/piece of paper, it doesn't actually exist and you can't use it. End Of Discussion". If your players are upset by that? Tough. It's the price of DMing. Players who want a game will put up with it. Players who trust you as a DM will put up with it. Players who understand that a DM who doesn't like the game they're running is a terrible DM no matter how good they are as a DM will put up with it. Players unwilling to put up with it are players you don't really want at your (e-)table regardless.
I generally recommend a less "I AM THE LAW!" approach; when I run a game (which is rare these days, but still) I tell my players what's available by default. If they want something else? They have to sell me on it, convince me why my game will be better for letting them use the option. "Because it's freaking cool!" isn't good enough - whatever someone plays will be Freaking Cool(!) a few sessions in once they get some investment up. But sometimes, occasionally, a really cool piece of worldbuilding or game lore will come from players attempting to sell me on a particular option. Sometimes the horse-trading suggests a cool story thread you can pursue as the DM. Inviting your players to try and contribute to worldbuilding before the campaign as well as during it can be a great way to draw people together and increase investment before ever you all meet in a tavern.
Sounds like the concept of Session 0 and Revisiting Session 0 have been lost. Establish the boundaries of your world. Let your players know. Sure, they're going to want to try things... we all do from time to time, but if the boundaries are clear there is no issue with changes like Tasha's make.
I mean, if you're upset about the changes, that's fine, but don't blame it on your players. Heck... I would be GRATEFUL that my players bought ANYTHING instead of me providing it all for them. Even then, I put in my campaign notes anything that is not allowed in this campaign and I've not had trouble with it. If something new like Tasha's come out, we talk about it in a Session 0 Revisited (particularly some of the SubClass changes) and how they could envision changing from where they are to where they want to go. If they cannot justify it, the "no" is easy to provide. If they can, then I let them start making adaptions in character and when I feel they are fully realizing the new concept then I'll begin adjudicating changes on my end.
In the end, we're all people and communication is the key that binds us all together in a game that has been constantly changing since the late 1970s.
Given the origins of race rules, Tasha's options are as simple as they could be. I like them better than expected, as opposed of the hype I had with class "alternate" features (which were everything but alternate in some cases).
I'm a bit more hesitant about the new lineage system though (in the middle of the edition), but just because it needs to live next to the old rules and it makes it harder to explain a new player how to build a character.
Tasha's was really the first radical reimagining of DnD 5e.
With the direction Wizards of the Coast are now doubling down with for races, the balance mentalities they are sticking to, and the player-first focus they are taking, this is really not the same game anymore.
I honestly just want them to come out and say Tasha's is the start of 5.5e, and stop tainting 5e with all this. Implementing Tasha's into my table was a nightmare, I modified half of what it gave us and I had to ban half of what was left. The lack of ability to filter content for campaigns on DDB has not helped, as I cannot even prevent unwanted official content from appearing in my players builders. I cant deal with another Tasha's, and I don't want to.
All i want to be able to do is decide what content my players can use, and make it easy for them to abide by those decisions. Whether thats by DDB adding tools to do so on their own, or WotC forcing them to by acknowledging the massive shift in the games direction and structure. I don't want to play this 5.5e that they are giving us, and I don't want to run it. Having the options presented within Tasha's and beyond appear by default in my and my players character builder is stressful, and I just want a way to stop it from happening.
Im not trying to tell WotC how to make their content or who they should be catering to, i couldnt care less about those things anymore. I just want my games to be unaffected by it. DDB was an amazing tool before all this, simple, concise, and any official content i didn't care for was gated off behind settings like MTG and Eberron which had toggles to disable them. I just want to be able to do that with Tasha's and anything else new. Having the character builder be clean and accurately display only the things my players can use will make our lives much easier.
The worst part i fear is, one day (if they don't rebrand) im going to get a new player who wants to use the newer content to make their [REDACTED] character, and im going to have to tell them "no" and they aren't going to understand why. They made their character out of official content, but they aren't allowed to play it? It sounds dumb, because it is dumb. Then, when i tell them they cant have whatever racial ASI they want, and they cant have one of those broken subclasses from tasha's, and they cant have those free additional class features from tasha's, they will just assume im the problem. That im a bigot against self expression and individuality cause i dont allow custom lineages. I just want my games to be balanced consistently, and the balance of the new content is not consistent with the old content.
As DDB have said, they will only do anything if WotC reflect it with the official content, so i think they should just come out and call a duck what it is. Make 5.5e official. And this is not me complaining about being left behind, I want to be left behind, im begging to be left behind. I dont want to see any of this new stuff in my campaign. So please WotC, just draw the line and make DDB draw it too.
Isn’t it a bit arbitrary to say that anything 5.5 would be bad for you when you don’t even know what you’re going to fully get? So many DMs pick and choose different house rules and homebrew to allow so you have full reign on what can be done.
Just give your players a list of what they can/can’t use. It’s super simple, just say you can select these races, these classes, these subclasses and have them deal with that. If a player gets annoyed at you for the limitations tell them that this is the way that makes it easier for you to DM/is what you want to DM and if they don’t accept that then that is their problem and they should find another group.
Also, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t content sharing already let you pick and choose what to share? If you have Tasha’s, don’t elect to share it.
Content Sharing has several flaws; the first being the toggles for each sourcebook dont stop the content from appearing if the players themselves already own it (some of my players are DMs who buy the content for their own games); and the second being it shares any and all homebrew in every players collection (some of which is made by my players for other campaigns that they run games for).
The issue this has caused for us, is not only does all the official content appear for them, but so do my edited copies of the official content that they are allowed to use, as well as every piece of homebrew one of us has made/added to our collections. The result of this issue is that our character builders are clustered as all hell.
Many have suggested making lists of what my players can and cant do, which i have done, but the problem with that is subjective to my group. I have players with ADHD and Autism, as well as some of them just being casual players who arent that committed to the game to learn everything that in-depth. We originally started using DDB because it was a way to allow them to seamlessly build characters with both official content and my homebrew without pouring through a dozen books and PDF's that they lacked the focus to micromanage. Its easy t say "Just give them a list" but while that might work for most people, it doesnt work for some who have issues with focus or memory.
With recent content releases and some of my players since branching out and becoming DMs themselves, the simple concise character building tool we came for has turned into a cluttered mess of content that our individual content listings can no longer perfectly help them sort through. Not to mention they can't even disable Tasha's content like they can with Eberron and MTG content. Im constantly getting questions about subclasses and races that are not mine, and several of my players cant build characters without my help now. The character builder is just too clustered for them now, and i can't disable the things that they cannot use (unwanted homebrew and official content alike).
All i really would like now is a way to pick and choose which content gets shown in my players builders. I would like to choose who's collections can contribute homebrew to the campaign, and i would like to choose which spells, feats, races, and subclasses can and can't be used from official sources. And most importantly, i would like these choices to be enforced by the campaign, preventing the unwanted options from appearing in the builders for those characters (not all their characters, just the characters they have added to my campaign).
I just want my players to have an easy time building characters again. All this new content, coupled with a lack of tools to ban/allow content on a piece by piece basis for campaigns, has lead to the character builder being hard for some of them to use. So i would hope WotC would just call this new content 5.5e, and force DDB to section it off.
Step Home toggle nothing but dice roll.
Step One Choose any race except custom lineage
Step Two Choose a Class
Step Three Roll or assign your ability
Step Four Description
Step Five Equip
Just running through the character generator I don't see how Tasha's messes with character generation at all unless you activate it. You can sure well disable optional class features and customize your origin. You can do exactly what you're complaining you can't. You want to control it even more piecemeal than before, but control to the point of spells and subclasses had to have been an issue well before Tasha's. At the end of the day you'll have to do the same thing people who don't use DDB do, they have to say "at my table these things are allowed. if you want to do something that is not one of these things, you can ask, but I probably won't grant the request." When you get a question about something you don't allow, you have to simply say "I don't allow that in my game." It sounds like they're buying books you don't use. That would happen whether you were using DDB or not.
DMing can try patience. But the partitioning your requesting from WotC and the further granular subclass and spell control you'd like to see from DDB I think goes above and beyond the D&D brands effort for broadest appeal. WotC, and its DDB's licensee to D&D gives you the tools to play the D&D you want to play. But making those tools into the D&D you want to play is on you and your group.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Let me try and put this into perspective;
Step one - is choose any race that isnt custom lineage, isnt any of the whacky races from weird sources, isnt particular races like satyr or yuan-ti cause they whack, isnt any homebrew race i didn't make, isnt certain subraces like those from wildmount, but CAN be certain hombrew races but not the random ones appearing from other peoples collections. Not to mention i have revisions to some offiicial races, some of which appear under their races groups, others dont because DDB doesnt have race groups for every official race for some reason.
Step two - is not just "choose a class", it is also choose a subclass, many of which from certain sources are banned, some of which from the same sources are allowed, and others have been modified by myself which appear alongside the official listing because something else in the same source as the official lsiting is allowed, also here are my homebrew subclasses that you can use, but there are also half a dozen subclasses from other peoples campaigns mixed in there cause i cant stop that from happening.
You also need to pick spells, which suffer from all the same issues as subclasses. And then feats as well, which have the same issues, and the added issues that not all races have race groups, so my homebrew racial feats for minotaurs and centaurs and what have you cannot be prerequisited correctly all appear to every character regardless of race.
Step three - is pretty simple, we use standard array, no complaints.
step four - i use races from ravnica and items from eberron so all of that appears in their options, not to mention the homebrew ones from other DMs campaigns that i cant stop from appearing
Step five - there are hoards and droves of magic items from every source that i allow, and items from every source that i disallow. The "add equipment" section is the easiest way to search for items your character can use, as it filters by proficiency and displays my homebrew items. The issue is, it also displays all the other DMs homebrew items, as well as the items i ban from any given sourcebook.
-----------------
So it really isnt as simple as you make it out to be. I have made lists of everything that is allowed, ive even gone through the builder and highlighted things that arent allowed. This has just turned some of my players off from homebrew content. Its too much for them. They can't handle the information overload. They would rather just play without anything special. This is the problem. I need a way to make the character builder not clustered for them. I need a way to make it so they only see what they can use, so all of their options are there and they don't have to pour through 3 pages of lists of things they can and can't use for every single choice they make when building a character.
And i do understand that all that is a bigger problem than can be fixed with putting the new content under its own lable, but it would help, and it would be easier to do than the make the in-depth content filter for campaigns.
It is simple. What you're describing sounds like what any DM may go through when they put limitations on what sources a player puts into the game. The difference is a matter of perspective. I see what you're describing as frankly routine DMing that may try some patience. You find it insufferable.
And again, the biggest problems you're outlining have been around for multiple volumes of D&D books prior to Tasha's. WotC has made it fairly clear they're not interested in compartmentalizing new content as 5.5 at the moment. I don't see DDB taking the initiative to tier content to the level of control you want. So there's one thing you can control and that's how you respond to the environment you DM in.
There are just more people who want the books easily integrated, not segregated.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
People are upset that races are featuring more diverse options and allowing folks to make characters that aren't stereotypical depictions. Dwarves that can intelligence based instead of constitution based, that kind of stuff. There's literally nothing else to it.
Why they are complaining on a forum not controlled or anyway affecting wizards of the coast is beyond me.
To be fair, the OP in this thread has issues with the expansion of options presented to players actually prior to Tasha's (but Tasha's gets scapegoated because of the options for floating ASIs I guess) and thus is asking for DDB to grant them greater control over players access to content in their game than content sharing presently allows. My take is the grievance sounds like DMs burden. Sure I'd like more granular control over content sharing, like I'd love to be able to grant players access to some but not all players or poster maps in an adventure without unlocking the whole adventure book. But negotiating characters or overruling characters is just part of DMing.
And FWIW, for a site that while not the main producer of D&D is a central hub for many people for "access" to D&D, I have no qualms about people talking here about what they like and don't like about the game. It's just the manner, or manners or more accurately lack thereof, and the incessant rehashing that gets to be a bit much.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Massive changes have been made which basically allows a player to put the stat bonuses anywhere they want to, so for example you could move the +2 to strength that a half orc gets to intelligence allowing you to play an optimised wizard. You can also change what your starting proficiencies, languages, tools and some of the specific racial advantages. This is really noticeable if you play a mountain dwarf with two +2 stat bonuses and battleaxe, handaxe, light hammer, and warhammer, light and medium armor - if you go a class that gives you simple, martial, armour and shield then you could swap out all of those from the racial abilities for other tools, and combined with the racial tool and a tool from a background, you could start with 8 tool proficiencies of your choice, then when you take say paladin / fighter / ranger /bard etc you get all of the armour and weapon proficiencies back. Meaning you just gained 8 tool proficiencies at no cost.
A lot of people are saying that this is good for the game, you see them screaming and shouting about every subject known to man all across social media, having their little temper tantrums. But I call it a power gamers wet dream. Because now I can play a mountain dwarf articifer with 11 tool proficiencies, a +2 stat bonus to int and maybe con or dex, light and medium armour, shields and simple weapons - which is all they need because their primary optimised build will be using a hand crossbow anyway.
It allows people to play builds that would never have previously been played because they were thought of as unoptimised, or sub par because the stat bonuses were in the wrong place for that race/class combo. As a player, and an unrepentant power gamer I love it. I just wish people would stop saying it is all about adding variety and diversity and call it what it is.
A players ability to influence the game will vary significantly based on the game being played, the experience and ability of the DM and the other players in the game. I run 2 regular long term games, in one the game is very much story based and I will change things a lot to keep it story driven - stat blocks will vary massively from one enemy to another, some creatures are more powerful and have higher cr's based on my changes, somethings might have more inclination to parley than get down to a fight, every situation is different and all of the players enjoy it. So far through their tactics and my careful management there hasn't been a single character death - though some very close calls. In the other game I run, there is very little story, it is mostly hack and slash with occasional social encounters to break up the combat. The action is brutal, and the players know that I will show them no mercy if they mess up. Dice rolls and rocks fall. So far they have had 4 character deaths out of 5 players.
So yes, how I build my character can have no relation to how difficult you make the game, if you know how to manipulate the game and adjust on the fly. But there are dozens of threads on here from inexperienced GM's complaining about 'broken characters' in their games, or players who are unhappy that their beautifully thought out characters with pages and pages of backstory don't seem to be able to keep up with or do anything like the great things that their party member can do. A mixed group of players some of whom understand how to make effective characters and some of whom play '******' characters because it has a great backstory will cause no end of headaches - for the DM and the players.
Yes, in the main I definitely agree with that statement as it is usually true. However there are occasions where an experienced player takes the leap to being a DM for the first time. I have had that situation recently where one of the regular players who is in both my games has decided to start running his own. Having never done it before he was nervous but he has done a really good job of it and we are all enjoying it. But we are also good friends and don't abuse things. For example I have chosen a very unusual race / class combo resulting in some unoptimised choices of feat and weapons etc, but then optimised it massively to make it as good as it can be. So I could have made it much better, taken a medium size race instead of small, used a heavy weapon with PAM or GWM etc but by choosing a small size and going sword and board I kept him fun and still as powerful as the other characters. But it wouldn't have been possible without Tasha's book to make the character. I also really like him, he has the potential to become one of my most favourite characters ever.
Massive changes? Really? You can move stat bonuses and play with some proficiencies. These are not massive changes, they are quite small. They can be used very effectively by power gamers, you are right, but so can many other race/class/subclass/multiclass/feat options available just in the core 3 books and are just as likely to make life difficult for an inexperienced DM.
The most "massive" change is that role players who want to play something different don't get mechanically hamstrung by those choices. The can play something weird and wonderful at the same table as a power gamer and not feel those choices have made them significantly worse. They don't have to feel constrained by the stereotype of the race anymore. They don't have to play the dumb, strong Orc or the graceful, intelligent elf.
I very much disagree with the OP that the "game is changing radically".
I think TCoE exists because nobody seems to know that Chapter 9 of the DMG exists. We've always been able to control the settings in the game - adding, removing, changing things.
Part of the problem I think is from people making the assumption that, if official/popular services can't do it, it's not allowed in the rules... except that rules essentially state that anything's possible and nobody is restricted to printed content. It's weird because so many campaigns people play were never in print - all invented outside the published content.
The only new direction here is that 5e said, "Do whatever and here are some ideas," but a good chunk of players seem to say, "No. Tell me what to do, and while you're at it, validate me." We don't need Hasbro to validate us. They gave us the tools to do it ourselves right from the start of 5e.
How does one "fix" something that lets DMs design their campaigns however they desire? The only possible change from "do whatever" is "don't do whatever".
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I will say, I wouldn't mind a more advanced slider system that allows you to control what specific content you can choose characters from. Perhaps under an advanced tab of some kind. Something that you'd need to look for in the character creator. I think it would be nice to be able to toggle in and out of specific books that way. More control (for me at least) is generally better.
However I fully understand that it is not a priority and it would defiantly be more of a "oh cool. they added this. That's useful" sort of thing. Id much rather they get books better integrated into the system, get he online dice roller finished, or enable some sort of aid for the visually impaired into Dnd Beyond before Id want this sort of control.
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."
D&D has always been this way. You tell your players "there are no dwarves in my setting," so they don't roll up a dwarf. No artificers. No feats. Happens all the time.
The official Adventure League games restrict content, and the official recommendation is PHB+1. Just declaring books off limits is neither dramatic nor unprecedented. Campaigns with everything allowed can definitely loose thematic tone and kill the setting you're going for depending on the game.
If you believe Tasha's or whatever book is destroying 5e and can write essays about it here, surely you can explain it to your players too. This is all Session 0 stuff.
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
Sounds like Tasha's isn't the issue but the homebrew options. Just nix the homebrew and play the game as written. If there is official content you don't want them to use then just tell them not to use it and after they create their characters you just verify it is the way you want it. I personally don't like to restrict my players as I would not want to be restricted myself other than you can only use official 5e stuff, no homebrew.
Point 1.) DDB giving DMs the power to turn a player's own purchased books off is actively against their business interests ("you bought Tasha's Cauldron? Whoops - you're in my campaign, and I have TCE turned off - now you can't use it period unless you leave my campaign. So
notsorry for you!")Point 2.) Midnight is right - this is just what happens when a DM uses this tool. Otherwise you're asking a player to never do or create anything in the system. Simply arrange with your players the idea that each piece of homebrew content is tagged with the player's name (i.e. most of my non-public homebrew has "YUREI HOMEBREW" Prominently displayed at the top, with instructions for use). That way players can see at a glance whether something is your homebrew and thus permissible, or someone else's homebrew and thus evil and awful and completely against the spirit of D&D.
Point 3.) Most importantly...balance isn't that important in this game. Unpopular (if correct) opinion: party size is the only "balance" point that can truly wreck your game. Unless you have a masterclass munchkin able to bend and twist the rules of D&D like an actual wizard - and I refuse to believe people who find the basic character builder system Too Complicated are going to be numbers sorcerers - it doesn't really matter which class or character options your players take. The game's "balance" is already super nebulous and wobbly, the only balance you need concern yourself with is intra-party parity. And even that can be left wobbly far more often than a lot of DMs think.
Midnight has the right of it. What this sounds like is you being upset that DDB offers your players options you wish it wouldn't. So do physical books. Prepare a list of allowed species/subspecies, classes, and subclasses. Give it to your players. Say "If it's not on this list, you can't have it. I don't care what DDB says exists; if it isn't on this document/piece of paper, it doesn't actually exist and you can't use it. End Of Discussion". If your players are upset by that? Tough. It's the price of DMing. Players who want a game will put up with it. Players who trust you as a DM will put up with it. Players who understand that a DM who doesn't like the game they're running is a terrible DM no matter how good they are as a DM will put up with it. Players unwilling to put up with it are players you don't really want at your (e-)table regardless.
I generally recommend a less "I AM THE LAW!" approach; when I run a game (which is rare these days, but still) I tell my players what's available by default. If they want something else? They have to sell me on it, convince me why my game will be better for letting them use the option. "Because it's freaking cool!" isn't good enough - whatever someone plays will be Freaking Cool(!) a few sessions in once they get some investment up. But sometimes, occasionally, a really cool piece of worldbuilding or game lore will come from players attempting to sell me on a particular option. Sometimes the horse-trading suggests a cool story thread you can pursue as the DM. Inviting your players to try and contribute to worldbuilding before the campaign as well as during it can be a great way to draw people together and increase investment before ever you all meet in a tavern.
Please do not contact or message me.
Sounds like the concept of Session 0 and Revisiting Session 0 have been lost. Establish the boundaries of your world. Let your players know. Sure, they're going to want to try things... we all do from time to time, but if the boundaries are clear there is no issue with changes like Tasha's make.
I mean, if you're upset about the changes, that's fine, but don't blame it on your players. Heck... I would be GRATEFUL that my players bought ANYTHING instead of me providing it all for them. Even then, I put in my campaign notes anything that is not allowed in this campaign and I've not had trouble with it. If something new like Tasha's come out, we talk about it in a Session 0 Revisited (particularly some of the SubClass changes) and how they could envision changing from where they are to where they want to go. If they cannot justify it, the "no" is easy to provide. If they can, then I let them start making adaptions in character and when I feel they are fully realizing the new concept then I'll begin adjudicating changes on my end.
In the end, we're all people and communication is the key that binds us all together in a game that has been constantly changing since the late 1970s.
Given the origins of race rules, Tasha's options are as simple as they could be. I like them better than expected, as opposed of the hype I had with class "alternate" features (which were everything but alternate in some cases).
I'm a bit more hesitant about the new lineage system though (in the middle of the edition), but just because it needs to live next to the old rules and it makes it harder to explain a new player how to build a character.
5e seems to be trending a little GURPSy.