D&D 5E Is Tasha's More or Less The Universal Standard?

And that was how you got Appendix T - the polearm chart. And level caps. And THAC0. And different multiclass rules for humans.

I for one prefer decent feedback being taken account of to whatever ideas (possibly fuelled by nose candy and often fuelled by ridiculous deadlines and a lack of playtesting) the writers came up with.
I liked a lot of those things.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Let's be brutally honest, trying to add more verisimilitude is the single worst reason to add a rule into a TTRPG. Add rules because they fit a pressing rules need and a re a solid game construct, and then layer the simulation on via narrative.
I don't think I've ever heard a gaming statement with which I've disagreed more strenuously. Impressive (most impressive).
 


Does it say that anywhere in the rules, or is belief in what spells can do a general understanding you have?
It's not hard coded, but... If you look at the power of 9th level spells, you can imprison someone for a very long time, summon a monster, create a teleportation circle, have very limited foresight, crush someone for some damage, do not enough damage to kill a high level character by dropping small meteors on them, stop time briefly and with limited usage, or cast the most powerful 9th level spell Wish, which doesn't even come close to godhood. Or you can become a god?

It took Karsus casting a 12th level spell to even have a chance to become a god. In 3e terms we have epic spells, some of which are equivalent spells of higher level than 12th in power level and none of them let you become a god, but we're supposed to believe that a 9th level spell can do it?

No. Gods are beyond mortal magic in that way and it takes a DM letting that slide for Pun-Pun to work as people are writing it.
 

Not particularly a surprise. Your statements make me believe you're a pretty big proponent of process-oriented high simulationism, which is a play style I'm generally against.
For me I get the playstyle - but process oriented high sim appears to be an attempt to do what Immersive Sims like Deus Ex or Zelda: Breath of the Wild can do better than any human GM and have been able to since the mid 00s. I'd rather focus on responsiveness, interactivity, consequences, and shenanigans that computers can't do remotely so well.
 

For me I get the playstyle - but process oriented high sim appears to be an attempt to do what Immersive Sims like Deus Ex or Zelda: Breath of the Wild can do better than any human GM and have been able to since the mid 00s. I'd rather focus on responsiveness, interactivity, consequences, and shenanigans that computers can't do remotely so well.
I'm well aware my sensibilities are not widely shared. That doesn't change anything for me.
 


I don't think I've ever heard a gaming statement with which I've disagreed more strenuously. Impressive (most impressive).

Well, at least we agreed about the ASIs. :)

I completely agree with @TwoSix on this one. In a pencil and paper RPG even a high degree of verisimilitude is still... very, very poor simulation. So chasing verisimilitude tends (in my opinion/experience) to add complexity while barely moving the realism needle. I am perfectly happy to "layer on the simulation via narrative".
 



Remove ads

Top