D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Minigiant]

It really rustles my jimmies that they won't update to PHP with some of these class variant rules. Especially in the case of Ranger and Sorcerer. It feels like building a shiny skyscraper on a slightly unstable foundation. I love the shiny, but I want the foundation to match.

What rustles my jimmies is how the ranger and sorcerer were put in the PHB in such a loveless unplaytested state in the first place.
Releasing a book with pages and pages to rewrite one or two of your classes completely is a bad sign or displays blantant unfavoritism in the past.

I think 5e was just a smidge too reliant on playtest and UA surveys. It let people who don't care for things have a deep voice in their design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No. They are very different in style and principle. Warlock is closer to cleric and sorcerer is closes to monk...

If we want Warlocks to not just be clerics, they must be imbued by magical power by their patron. i.e. the magic is theirs, they're not just channelling the patron's power as that would make them clerics. Sorcerers are imbued with magic as well, it just happened via birth. So they're similar. I really don't see why a fae pact warlock and a fae blood sorcerer wouldn't basically be the same thing. Furthermore, warlock rules make better sorcerer rules than the sorcerer rules do. Rapidly recharging magic and always on magical effects both fit the theme of an innately magical being really well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I see it as a trade-off. I don't find one method superior to the other as both have pros and cons.

You know fewer spells (in general) but they are always ready. You can have prepared spells, but often the spells you might want aren't ready. This is why wizard's ritual casting is so powerful IMO. If you have time for the ritual, you don't need to bothering having the spell prepared--it really makes them stand out as casters because other ritual casters still need to have the spell prepared.

The exchange is also because each of the known spell casting classes have other features to compensate for the lack of versatility in spells--so in my mind it is not a case of "everything else is equal". Also, since they can exchange a known spell when they level, I feel that is sufficient versatility to allow them to change a bad spell if they regret a selection later on--and encourages them to select their spells more carefully.

Giving known-spell casters spell versatility on a long rest is an ENORMOUS boon to them IMO. You can easily swap out a spell if you know something is coming up when you'll need it. And frankly, if you have 10 known spells and time is not essential, after 10 days you can have 10 completely different spells! I just feel that is simply too much because it takes away from the "too bad you never learned that spell" case.

I really don’t see how the known spells casters gain literally anything at all.

Hell, they usually have fewer spells known than prepared casters have prepared, on a given day.

Seems like objectively all downside, to me.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I really don’t see how the known spells casters gain literally anything at all.

Sorry if I was unclear, but they gain a lot to make up for it.

Bards - Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Expertise
Rangers - Favored Enemies, Fighting Style, Extra Attack
Sorcerers - Metamagic
Warlocks - Eldritch Invocations

Honestly, to me Rangers getting known spells are sort of the "odd man out" of the group. I suppose the idea is Rangers pick up there spells without much structure (as opposed to Paladins which I can imagine some structure might be there?).

But, otherwise, Metamagic and Eldritch Invocations are the big things that make up for the lack of versatility of known spells, but YMMV.

 

[Minigiant]

If we want Warlocks to not just be clerics, they must be imbued by magical power by their patron. i.e. the magic is theirs, they're not just channelling the patron's power as that would make them clerics. Sorcerers are imbued with magic as well, it just happened via birth. So they're similar. I really don't see why a fae pact warlock and a fae blood sorcerer wouldn't basically be the same thing. Furthermore, warlock rules make better sorcerer rules than the sorcerer rules do. Rapidly recharging magic and always on magical effects both fit the theme of an innately magical being really well.

The way I've always heard it explained.

The Wizard studies everyday to learn magic. They pass the arcanist test.
The Sorcerer is naturally gifted and studies or meditates a bit to unlock how their powers work. They pass the arcanist test.

The Warlock cheated. Daddy Patron either gave him the answers, gave him magic enhancement drugs, made a deal with the principal, or slept with the teacher. And now the Warlock only has some sort of reject magic that the patron tossed him to make him look like a wizard. Many warlocks have no idea how their magic works. That's how the patron makes some warlocks dependent on the patron for advancement. Thesmart warlock attemptto figure out what happened and unlock the next levels of the hack. You either learn to fix the magic gun or you are dependent on your magic gunsmith.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to be clear (maybe we have different definitions?), but how are Wizards "spontaneous" casters--they still have to select prepared spells?

They have to select a list of “prepared spells” from which they can cast whatever they want as many times as they want. IOW, they work exactly like 3e sorcerers, except that they can change out their knownprepared spells each day.

 

[Charlaquin]

If we want Warlocks to not just be clerics, they must be imbued by magical power by their patron. i.e. the magic is theirs, they're not just channelling the patron's power as that would make them clerics. Sorcerers are imbued with magic as well, it just happened via birth. So they're similar. I really don't see why a fae pact warlock and a fae blood sorcerer wouldn't basically be the same thing. Furthermore, warlock rules make better sorcerer rules than the sorcerer rules do. Rapidly recharging magic and always on magical effects both fit the theme of an innately magical being really well.

Re: the vague distinction between warlocks and clerics, I’d love for warlock Patrons to work like actual patrons. Instead of granting their warlock power in exchange for services in a contractual relationship, they just sort of gift their warlock power because they like the warlock’s work and want to encourage them to keep it up, and to see what they’ll do with it. Maybe they’ll suggest certain things for the warlock to use it for. And the warlock will probably do it, because the do sort of rely on the power their patron gives them, and they want to keep their patron happy so they don’t lose interest and the power keeps flowing.

You know, like what patrons do for artists, but with magic instead of money.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sorry if I was unclear, but they gain a lot to make up for it.

Bards - Inspiration, Jack of All Trades, Expertise
Rangers - Favored Enemies, Fighting Style, Extra Attack
Sorcerers - Metamagic
Warlocks - Eldritch Invocations

Honestly, to me Rangers getting known spells are sort of the "odd man out" of the group. I suppose the idea is Rangers pick up there spells without much structure (as opposed to Paladins which I can imagine some structure might be there?).

But, otherwise, Metamagic and Eldritch Invocations are the big things that make up for the lack of versatility of known spells, but YMMV.

See, but this doesn't work for me, let me grab that Ranger for a second

"Rangers - Favored Enemies, Fighting Style, Extra Attack"

Paladins are prepared casters and they get.... Fighting Style, Extra Attack, Lay on Hands, Divine Sense, Divine Smite, Auras


Clerics? Channel Divinity, Armor profs, weapon profs
Druids? Wildshape, Armor Prof, Weapon prof

I mean, some of the things the Known Casters get are good, but prepared casters tend to get a lot of nice things. Heck, Just the fact that Clerics and Paladins can turn their shields into Divine Focuses, removing the need for them to have a hand free to cast is huge in and of itself.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If we want Warlocks to not just be clerics, they must be imbued by magical power by their patron. i.e. the magic is theirs, they're not just channelling the patron's power as that would make them clerics. Sorcerers are imbued with magic as well, it just happened via birth. So they're similar. I really don't see why a fae pact warlock and a fae blood sorcerer wouldn't basically be the same thing. Furthermore, warlock rules make better sorcerer rules than the sorcerer rules do. Rapidly recharging magic and always on magical effects both fit the theme of an innately magical being really well.

Hmmhm. Maybe the sorcerer could have been done differently. Yes, the warlock structure would also fit the sorcerer. But I see them as different concepts thematically.

 

[Flamestrike]

To my mind, the solution to buyer's remorse is "talk to the DM."

That's my solution as well.

I'd rather let a player re-do a level up decision (feat, class feature, or spell) than have the player be unhappy with that choice.

I've softened my stance on retraining a lot over the years, to the point I explain early to new players that I'm OK with it, and not to worry too much when making choices. I'll let players 're-train' whole archetypes if they desire.

It speeds up character creation and levelling up, letting players take what seems fun and fits the character. If it turns out it wasnt as fun as they thought, it's no big deal to change it out.