D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[DND_Reborn]

Was there an error in my recap of your argument?

I already did several times--which apparently you failed to recognize or understand--so "You don't get it."

Oh, and...

I'd point out that these rules were first tested out last November, and according to WotC, had one of the most overwhelmingly positive survey results.

Well, of course, because the people who like such things will poll positively, the people who recognize garbage when they see it won't bother.

Listen, I see no further point in this discussion, and I am certain you don't either, so you won't have to worry about any more snide emoticons now. Have a nice day.

 

[EscherEnigma]

Before I applied the little correction to the sorcerers, rangers and warlocks, I was seeing almost none of them with my group of power gamers and if there was one it was only to play the under dog.

Yes, we know your group is full of power-gamers, and that this distorts your thinking.

I think that you want this rule so hard for your sorcerer that you willingly blind yourself to the fact that this rule is directly attacking the wizard niche at no cost for your sorcerer.

I'm currently in two games. In one, I play a ranger, and have for three or four years now (this game also includes two sorcerers who joined the campaign last year). In the other, I'm the GM.

But please, tell me more about myself. I'm sure it will be enlightening.

I bet that if a rule would give wizardry point to a wizard that duplicate the sorcerer's metamagic, I would see scream that this is unfair to the sorcerer. That the sorcerer shtick is exactly metamagic and that the wizard has no need of it.

Off the top of my head, there have been two different UA wizard sub-classes that allowed wizards to swap out the damage type of their spells, and there was that feat-focused UA one that allowed any caster to get access to metamagic. I'm pretty sure at least one of those sub-classes, and that feat, are going to be in Tashas. So sure, you may see screams... and those would be just as hyperbolic and over-the-top as yours.

Lol, my players already told me they would use the feature ad nauseam when the book gets out. And if I don't buy it, they'll buy it to me as a gift and out veto me into using it.

The more you talk about your players, the more convinced I am that your problems are, fundamentally, with your players, not with any rules, variant or otherwise.

 

[Laurefindel]

Easily cancelled by a Dispel Magic.

Any DM who allows this spell to ram-rod the adventure is a poor excuse for a DM...

I hear this argument often, but unless you make your own custom-made NPCs, there aren't a lot of creatures in the monstrous manual that can cast dispel magic. A DM shouldn't have to spam 5th-level+ spellcaster NPCs to be anything else than a "poor excuse of a DM".

I understand that DM need to tailor their games in accordance to the PCs and their abilities or lack thereof, but I find the "just cast dispel magic on them!" method to be just a band-aid over a deeper underlying issue. Not all DMs (and players) will have a problem with this, but I believe I can objectively say that it can be an issue in many games.

 

[Helldritch]

Yes, we know your group is full of power-gamers, and that this distorts your thinking.


I'm currently in two games. In one, I play a ranger, and have for three or four years now (this game also includes two sorcerers who joined the campaign last year). In the other, I'm the GM.

But please, tell me more about myself. I'm sure it will be enlightening.


Off the top of my head, there have been two different UA wizard sub-classes that allowed wizards to swap out the damage type of their spells, and there was that feat-focused UA one that allowed any caster to get access to metamagic. I'm pretty sure at least one of those sub-classes, and that feat, are going to be in Tashas. So sure, you may see screams... and those would be just as hyperbolic and over-the-top as yours.


The more you talk about your players, the more convinced I am that your problems are, fundamentally, with your players, not with any rules, variant or otherwise.

LOL!
Even three groups that are not playing with, and are under 17 years old have seen the potential because they asked me (at our friday night magic, yes I do play a bit too with my old cards...) if they were wrong in their assertions! My second group is not made of power gamers and we discussed it and yet, they too find the rule too over the top.

Yep, I really think that you are dismissive of others and that you blind yourself to the obvious. Do not attack the poster, attack the premises...ho you don't because you can't. That's why.

 

[Helldritch]

I hear this argument often, but unless you make your own custom-made NPCs, there aren't a lot of creatures in the monstrous manual that can cast dispel magic. A DM shouldn't have to spam 5th-level+ spellcaster NPCs to be anything else than a "poor excuse of a DM".

I understand that DM need to tailor their games in accordance to the PCs and their abilities or lack thereof, but I find the "just cast dispel magic on them!" method to be just a band-aid over a deeper underlying issue. Not all DMs (and players) will have a problem with this, but I believe I can objectively say that it can be an issue in many games.

Ever heard of diversity of opponents?
Ever heard of spell swapping? It's not only for the players you know?
Dispel magic will be used if spell such as Tiny Hut are used to often. Because if the players can get info on their foes, so can their foes. They are not static. If the players keep using the same tactics it will be a known fact. Easy to justify and to implement. This would not be adversarial DM, but using foes cleverly.

 

[Vael]

I already did several times--which apparently you failed to recognize or understand--so "You don't get it."

"It's SO obvious ... you don't get it ... " Oooh, now stamp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud.

Well, of course, because the people who like such things will poll positively, the people who recognize garbage when they see it won't bother.

... Do you need a primer on surveys and customer response? Have you been on the Internet? Negative feedback is always easier to find and more prevalent. What a ridiculous statement.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I hear this argument often, but unless you make your own custom-made NPCs, there aren't a lot of creatures in the monstrous manual that can cast dispel magic. A DM shouldn't have to spam 5th-level+ spellcaster NPCs to be anything else than a "poor excuse of a DM".

I understand that DM need to tailor their games in accordance to the PCs and their abilities or lack thereof, but I find the "just cast dispel magic on them!" method to be just a band-aid over a deeper underlying issue. Not all DMs (and players) will have a problem with this, but I believe I can objectively say that it can be an issue in many games.

Leomund's Invincible Bunker is definitely on my ban list. It is an absurdly powerful spell for its level and a total plot killer. Sure, I could populate the world with monsters capable of dispelling it, but that would be weird and it is just easier to not allow the bloody thing in the first place. It is a boring spell.

 

[EscherEnigma]

I think these quotes say enough.

I think that you want this rule so hard for your sorcerer that you willingly blind yourself to the fact that this rule is directly attacking the wizard niche at no cost for your sorcerer.

Do not attack the poster, attack the premises... ho you don't because you can't. That's why.

 

[DND_Reborn]

"It's SO obvious ... you don't get it ... " Oooh, now stamp your feet and stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud.

LOL ok, ignored. Have a nice day.

 

[Helldritch]

I think these quotes say enough.

Quote the whole post man. Not just a part of it to feel good and entitled.

Before I applied the little correction to the sorcerers, rangers and warlocks, I was seeing almost none of them with my group of power gamers and if there was one it was only to play the under dog.

A bad rule can effectively make a class literally unplayed. Just as a bad concept can make a class or subclass unplayed. How many people actually play a monk of the four elements as is? Almost no body and for good reasons.

Again, you will see people play the under dog once in a while. But it will stay at the once in a while.

I think that you want this rule so hard for your sorcerer that you willingly blind yourself to the fact that this rule is directly attacking the wizard niche at no cost for your sorcerer.

I bet that if a rule would give wizardry point to a wizard that duplicate the sorcerer's metamagic, I would see scream that this is unfair to the sorcerer. That the sorcerer shtick is exactly metamagic and that the wizard has no need of it.

Well, spell versatility is the wizard's shtick and the sorcerer is winning big time at the wizard's expense for no cost at all.

Quoting my self here.
That was one line on one post. Not a whole post like you did. Good day.