D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Charlaquin]

Really? Powergamers are bogeyman for you? Gotcha DMs are bogeyman too?

I should clarify that the sort of power gamers and gotcha DMs that people on D&D forums tend to wring their hands about are boogeymen. Actual people who like to play optimized characters, or run the world and NPCs in a way that is hostile to the PCs? They’re generally fine people, and fun to play with so long as your expectations are not mismatched.

And powergamers are more devious than you think. They will subtely (more or less depending on the DM) do their stuff without you noticing before it is too late.

Too late for what? To keep them from playing powerful characters?

The goal is not to thwart them, that is a last chance response. It is to not to tempt them do it first.

Tomao, tomahto. My point is, I don’t think the game should be designed around power gamers. Power gamers gonna power game, the only thing that designing around them really accomplishes is making the game more restrictive for non-power gamers.

And for the record, I am a power gamer, I don't mind power gamer because I can manage them. But I spend so much time coaching young DMs about their "out of control" games that whenever I see a potential abuse of the rules, I think of those that do not have the experience that I have and that will fall into the "trap".

There are some assumptions here that I think would need to be unpacked for this discussion to be productive, but I’m not sure if it’d be all that worthwhile to get into here.

As for not playing with power gamers. Why would I restrain myself from playing with some of my best friends? It is better to reach an understanding and a mutual agreement that to stop seeing them at the gaming table.

Sorry, that was a little flippant of me. A more nuanced take would be that if someone’s power gaming is harming your gameplay experience, it is best to resolve that by out of game means, up to potentially deciding not to play together, if your preferences prove incompatible. My broader point was simply that what problems can arise from power gaming (or rather, having a mix of power gamers and non power gamers at the table) are better solved with real-world social skills than with game design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't understand how people can't see how spell versatility is huge deal and completely changes the mechanic identity of the sorcerers. Perhaps this doesn't matter in games where you just always use the same combat spells to blast enemies, but outside that this is a huge deal. In a spell-based problem solving a change from having very limited selection of spells being able to access any spell you could have theoretically chosen just by having a long rest is pretty damn colossal shift. And this sort of versatility definitely was wizard's thing, but now sorcerers do it better. From class identity perspective this is super confused.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most of the "variant class features" don't bother me, but the spell versatility one... I'm conflicted.

On one hand, it basically turns "spells known" casters into "spells prepared" casters, but with a slower process for changing their selection and different "spells prepared" mechanics (all existing spells-prepared casters follow the same progression, based on stat and level, all existing spells-known casters have unique progressions in their class tables).

And, well, that rankles a little.

On the other hand, what I've seen is that, outside of special situations, spell-casters (known or prepared) rarely change their spell selection, and when they do, it's not the spells they use all the time they change out, but the spells that weren't as useful as they expected them to be.

And between the scenario of "the sorcerer has spells they never use" and "the sorcerer uses more of their spells", I think the second option is obviously superior. Players should be using more of their features, and this helps that.

So it rankles a little, but next time I GM, I'll almost certainly be using it.

I agree with this take. Eroding the distinction between prepared casters and known casters feels wrong. One desires for different types of casters to have different identities and gameplay feels. But when you step back and think about the actual play experience, prepared casters already mostly function the same as known casters, and all this seems likely to change is to let players who are dissatisfied with one or two of their spell picks swap for something they will like more without having to wait several sessions till they can level up.

EDIT: It’s also super easy to just ignore if you don’t like it. Honestly, this feels mostly like a fix for Adventures League where you can’t just work something out with your DM if you’re unhappy with one of your spell picks.

 

[Kurotowa]

It’s also super easy to just ignore if you don’t like it. Honestly, this feels mostly like a fix for Adventures League where you can’t just work something out with your DM if you’re unhappy with one of your spell picks.

I think I just said this in another thread, but it's worth repeating. Some groups fully embrace an ethos of "The rules are more like guidelines" and will freely make small exceptions for a better play experience. Other groups are more LN types where the rules are the rules and they hesitate to just start coloring outside the lines. Having optional variant rules gives the latter sorts of group the permission they need to start tweaking things and the guidance on how to do so in a relatively balanced way. This can be invaluable for them, even if the more free form types question if it's really necessary.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Fair enough. I disagree, but it is what it is.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Fair enough. I disagree, but it is what it is.

No worries. I find those abilities more that sufficient. It is what makes each classes a bit more unique IMO.

 

[Azzy]

First... Did this really take anyone by surprise? Since the first moment that Tasha's was officially announced, they've stated that the class options were going to be in there (and that the UA playtest that they were from was the best recieved UA to date). If anyone was taken unaware by this, then they failed a DC 1 Wisdom (Perception) check.

Secondly... THIS IS AWESOME! It looks like were going to have some refinements and additions to what was in the UA.

Also, I really have to roll my eyes at the argument that Sorcerers being able to trade out one spell on a long rest is somehow being overpowered. That's just silly.

 

[Undrave]

In a spell-based problem solving a change from having very limited selection of spells being able to access any spell you could have theoretically chosen just by having a long rest is pretty damn colossal shift.

Spell-based 'problem solving' is the most boring thing about DnD...

Pretty sure all the official campaign are balanced on the idea that every spell is potentially available, wether as a known spell or as a spell scroll or wand you could just buy. If a campaign were to hinge on PCs not having access to one specific spell, then it's badly designed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Spell-based 'problem solving' is the most boring thing about DnD...

Then you really shouldn't like this feature!

 

[Undrave]

Then you really shouldn't like this feature!

Meh. My group doesn't really think in terms of 'having the right spell' in so much as 'how do I use what I got' so this feature just lets us walk back mistakes, or integrate newly released spells, more than anything else.