D&D 5E A change of heart about Tasha’s

[Warpiglet-7]

My initial reaction to Tasha’s was lukewarm at best. Not only did I dislike a lot of the subclasses, I was really against the floating ASI and custom lineages. I liked the feats largely, but disliked the art direction.

I am not going to say I am eating my words, but I have really reevaluated the book and it’s offerings.

Over time, I have grown to like many more of the subclasses. There were some I flat out ignored and some I disliked at first sight. So what has changed?

First, so much lore is malleable. It’s not bending the rules, it’s encouraged. So artificer grated initially. Then I realized you don’t have to be robocop. Maybe you’re a witch that uses “leathers.” Perhaps you are using infernal tech.

The feats…they just allow more things to be realized with less fuss. An eldritch knight who takes fey touched shadow touched and other spell granting feats changes dramatically—without busting balance. I used to say of my warlocks: I am one invocation away from being what I envision! I would trade a feat to get it! (Tasha’s geanted my wish).

Some of the options for warlocks (my favorite class) are really broadening. Whether it’s a new pact boon or the new patrons, the play space has improved and grown (yes, I am lusting after both the genie and the fathomless patron options).

I could say more but think these broad areas represent what I have reevaluated about Tasha’s.

My biggest gripe was the floating ASIs and custom lineages. I am not a fan of the floating ASI. I won’t relitigate that issue. But I will say about custom lineages…

I was talking with my friend about a white dragon tiefling sorcerer…maybe levistus type. And he says: what about a white Abishai background? Fits both. And suddenly I got it in a more personal way. The custom lineages is not always just “the easy button.” It would help make this a cohesive whole.

This book more than any other (to me) requires cooperation with the group and DM. But there is a note at the start that is probably overlooked a lot: it’s optional content. You and your group decide! And you can decide (as always!) on an item by item basis.

Lastly I will not like the art direction. I play in largely humanocentric or at least basic race optional campaigns. There might be an odd gnome or tiefling but we do not play in worlds represented by the books art. Tieflings are not around every corner and none of us are wearing spectacles or sporting tank tops and tribal tattoos while sporting nose rings. But whatever. Some groups do.

In summary, I have grown to like much of Tasha’s. It’s a solid addition to D&D. And frankly, I think this makes D&D a really complete game. With Xanathar’s I cannot find many concepts or options I want that I don’t have access to and that is saying something. It’s saying a lot.

I am ready to get shouted down for this and I am at peace with it but 5e has done enough right that I feel no pull to update and move to a 5.5 or whatever. That’s not negativity, that’s just me saying WOTC did a very, very good job. I looked at my my 5e library yesterday and thought: well done. I have gotten my money’s worth with 5e and then some.

We have started playing a lot more lately and it’s bliss. This game and friends trumps all other leisure for me. And Tasha’s has shockingly become a part of the 5e equation…

 

[Charlaquin]

Glad you’ve come around on a lot of it and made peace with the stuff you still don’t like being optional! Sorry you don’t care for the art direction; I can empathize, as it doesn’t really reflect how I envision the worlds I like to run either, though personally I enjoy most of the artwork when evaluated in vacuum.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree about the artwork. I also prefer a human-centric aesthetic.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I agree about the artwork. I also prefer a human-centric aesthetic.

I am not saying it’s bad btw…just not what my group is into

 

[DND_Reborn]

I am not saying it’s bad btw…just not what my group is into

Ditto.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I had the reverese journey... I like the new stuff and thought 'everything is changing' crowd had it wrong

but more and more I understand we are getting a shadow edition change in 2024

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I was talking with my friend about a white dragon tiefling sorcerer…maybe levistus type. And he says: what about a white Abishai background? Fits both. And suddenly I got it in a more personal way. The custom lineages is not always just “the easy button.” It would help make this a cohesive whole.

Honestly, the only thing that confuses me here is why anyone would view it as anything other than this. Like...that's what it's for. When none of the racial options really fit or make sense. It's basic, sure, but 5e isn't the kind of game that can handle a non-basic custom lineage structure, not as written. (An expansion willing to make changes, such as Level Up, is a different story.)

The whole point of 5e "empowering" DMs (as much as I have issues with that concept and with its execution) was to make it so they would have explicit control over stuff like this. If a player wants a custom lineage that isn't thematically appropriate, just tell them they can't do that. It genuinely baffles me why any DM would tolerate exploitative or abusive behavior from players in this sense.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Honestly, the only thing that confuses me here is why anyone would view it as anything other than this. Like...that's what it's for. When none of the racial options really fit or make sense. It's basic, sure, but 5e isn't the kind of game that can handle a non-basic custom lineage structure, not as written. (An expansion willing to make changes, such as Level Up, is a different story.)

The whole point of 5e "empowering" DMs (as much as I have issues with that concept and with its execution) was to make it so they would have explicit control over stuff like this. If a player wants a custom lineage that isn't thematically appropriate, just tell them they can't do that. It genuinely baffles me why any DM would tolerate exploitative or abusive behavior from players in this sense.

Have you never played with people that push for advantages that don’t contribute to shared enjoyment? If not good for you.

But cherry picking goodies without regard for the shared fiction is ubiquitous. My group also likes the idea of earning things and doing it the hard way. I have seen more than a few players do what it takes to win, while it looks legal but cheap to me.

It goes without saying everyone’s mileage may vary in these experiences but hope that elucidates my trepidation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have you never played with people that push for advantages that don’t contribute to shared enjoyment? If not good for you.

I have played with folks who tried. Every DM I've ever had that I would call remotely "good" at DMing addressed the issue. (I also find that almost all players push for advantages...because success is, in general, considered enjoyable.)

My group also likes the idea of earning things and doing it the hard way. I have seen more than a few players do what it takes to win, while it looks legal but cheap to me.

I'd like to unpack this a bit. What does a character's race, ancestry, lineage, whatever we wish to call it, have to do with "earning" anything? Narratively by definition no one merits being born what they were, so this would seem to be a concern unrelated to the part I clipped out (about ignoring shared fiction.) This thus seems to be a matter of the player "earning" something, but how does ancestry choice affect whether or not one "earns" things?

 

[Bill Zebub]

(I also find that almost all players push for advantages...because success is, in general, considered enjoyable.)

I find the same thing. It often gets mischaracterized as trying to get advantages relative to other players. But really it's about having advantages relative to a nearly identical character you could have played.