log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Here's Tasha's Contents Page

IGN has posted the contents page from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, along with a slew of art.

Tashas-Cauldron-of-Everything_ToC_WM-720x949.jpg


They also spoke to WotC, who commented on some of the DM tools -- "The DM Tools chapter also includes rules and suggestions for what are being called "Supernatural Regions." These otherworldly locations include (among others) haunted realms where restless spirits wander freely, the Lovecraftian nightmare of a world beyond the known sphere of existence, or a delightfully horrifying colony of mimics." The Far Realm, which is outside the Great Wheel, is where beholders and illithids come from. They also note that there weren't many Unearthed Arcana subclasses which didn't make it into this book.

Tasha's Cauldron of Everything comes out on November 17th in America, and December 1st in Europe, Asia, and Pacific countries.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

It really is something different - half-psion, half-icky tentacular stuff. Arms of Hadar, Hunger of Hadar, Black Tentacles etc on the spell list, and the 14th level ability is basically 'you grow eyestalks or are covered in slimy mucus'.

That's all stuff that's completely alien (pun intended) to, for example, what psionics are in Dark Sun.

My gut feeling is that WotC gave up on having a psion class/subclass that was ready and UA-verified in time for Tasha's, and so gave up and cut it completely. I reckon that if we see a Dark Sun 5e book, the 5e psion (whatever it looks like) will show up there.
Apparently, according to WoTC, they dial backed the Lovecraftian aspects of the original UA version.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Jacqual

Explorer
One of the biggest complaints they received was the lack of bonus spells that the class had and then lost in its revision. As well as the free mage armor effect it lost.
 


I'm really glad they added back the "Aberrent" part for one reason: it is now clear that this won't be* the 5e Psion.

Having a Charisma based Sorcerer subclass represent the traditional Psion(icist) in 5e was extremely controversial. With this change (and I also approve of dialing back the tentacles some), the door is still wide open for a dedicated Psion if they choose to go that route (likely for Dark Sun).

They also dialed back on the number of what looked like psionic powers that they had considered making into spells and giving to arcane casters. Now there are only 2 (an attack and a defense), plus a custom spell Tasha developed rather than a suite of powers just give to all the arcanists.

This is exactly what a good compromise looks like. Some people really wanted to get any form of psionics from WotC, and this book gives them a variety of such things. Some people wanted this sort of thing and didn't want a full Psion class. Others really want a more traditional Psion that is its own class with it's own list of powers and such, which they have graciously made possible by making the Sorcerer subclass clearly not "the 5e Psion" and by not giving all those UA psionic powers to every arcane caster.

I'm very pleasantly surprised by this, and by some of the other things I'm seeing in this book. Looks like WotC is getting better at finding ways not to leave out parts of the fanbase.

Now, the apparent changes to Bladesinger on the other hand, are the only super-botch I've heard about in this book so far, and if there isn't more to it than I'm seeing won't get used in my campaigns.

*Unless, despite the name, they actually present it as "the Psion" in it's description, which seems unlikely.
 

Dragonhelm

Knight of Solamnia
Aberrant mind seems to be a really specific flavour of psionics though - i don't think it really reflects the psionic soul sorcerer we saw in UA (and the Aberrant Mind showed up in a completely different UA). It really is something different - half-psion, half-icky tentacular stuff. Arms of Hadar, Hunger of Hadar, Black Tentacles etc on the spell list, and the 14th level ability is basically 'you grow eyestalks or are covered in slimy mucus'.

That's all stuff that's completely alien (pun intended) to, for example, what psionics are in Dark Sun.

My gut feeling is that WotC gave up on having a psion class/subclass that was ready and UA-verified in time for Tasha's, and so gave up and cut it completely. I reckon that if we see a Dark Sun 5e book, the 5e psion (whatever it looks like) will show up there.

IIRC, they've been quoted as saying that the first Aberrant Mind was too icky, Psionic Soul was too normal. So I'd guess this one will be somewhere between those too.

I really wanted the sorcerer subclass to have the name "psion" or "psionic" in it somewhere. That would be a nice nod to prior editions. But, I've talked to Dan Dillon in the past about it, and he said that polling showed that a lot of folks didn't care for the old class names (psion and psionicist).

I don't like the idea of the aberrant mind because I'm not a huge Lovecraft fan. I don't like the icky aspect to it. I get that the psionic soul may feel a bit too generic, but I could shape it a lot more.

Honestly, at this point, I could just take the base sorcerer class, change the main spellcasting ability to Intelligence, drop the spell components, throw in some psionic flavor, and then call it a day.

We'll see. Maybe there's something more in there that I'm unaware of.
 

Most of this stuff looks cool. I'm sure I will make use of about 70% of it (not using these "psionics" or the nerfed Favored Foe, and stuff like that). I was going to buy it anyways, as I have "need" to have every D&D 5e book, but I would have liked for some of the stuff to be a bit different. Oh well. I'll just have to make do with what the book offers.

I am honestly kind of surprised by how few spells there seem to be in this book. There are less spells in this book (including the reprints there are 21) than there are subclasses (22, which is excluding the reprinted ones). That is a bit underwhelming to me. I was hoping they would finally get around to making more elemental damaging spells (besides fire). I guess I have to wait 3 more years with my fingers crossed.

Also, did anyone else notice that there seem to be 4 pages marked for Artificer Infusions? Not all of them have to be completely filled, but that is a ton more than we previously had (only two-pages worth).

There have been some name changes, most of which I think are improvements (love->unity->peace, aberrant mind->psionic soul->aberrant mind, lurker in the deep->fathomless). I hope they fixed bladesingers well, and I was not a fan of the Order of the Scribes. I would have prefered the Onoumancer so much more. It's a shame it was dumped.

I can't wait to see how many feats from the Feats UA made their way into the book and what changes were made. I hope they didn't nerf them too much.

Also, I have never really been a fan of Group Patrons, so I will probably not end up using that. I'm more excited for the magic items.

Sidekicks are a thing, I guess. I don't really care a ton about them, but I'm sure I could make some use out of them somehow.

Other than that, the rest seems cool, especially the natural magical effects, puzzles, and natural hazards.
 

cbwjm

Hero
As much as I loved it, I wasn't surprised. It was a whole new class system in a class.

I wish they'd at least try out a subclass of sorcerer or monk or something that used the Mystic's discipline mechanic
Thats actually my upgrade for the 4 elements monk, they choose disciplines from the mystic based on the elements for the wu jen. Makes for a more interesting subclass, though it still has the problem of class and subclass abilities fighting for ki points.
 


No really surprising. Did you see the page count on that thing?! It was worth multiple class and could do EVERYTHING.
It was OP, but WotC could have fixed it instead of just giving up on a class based psionic system. And, of course it was super long. If you were to take the Wizard class and all of the pages describing spellcasting, and every spell that Wizards get access to, I can assure you that in comparison to the Mystic, the class would not be outrageously long.
 

cbwjm

Hero
It was OP, but WotC could have fixed it instead of just giving up on a class based psionic system. And, of course it was super long. If you were to take the Wizard class and all of the pages describing spellcasting, and every spell that Wizards get access to, I can assure you that in comparison to the Mystic, the class would not be outrageously long.
But then people would have to learn another system which is hard! /sarcasm

It might not have happened, but if they hadn't tried to fit every archetype into the mystic, maybe it would have stuck around.
 

Inchoroi

Adventurer
Honestly, at this point, I could just take the base sorcerer class, change the main spellcasting ability to Intelligence, drop the spell components, throw in some psionic flavor, and then call it a day.
This is what I expect, and I won't really be too mad about it, really, as long as it scratches that itch.

Might not even have spell slots: I wonder if they will go with the proficiency bonus number of psionic talent dice, and you can reduce them to cast a psionic spell? Add in a "psionic talent" subsystem, a la Sorcerer's Metamagic, and boom. Psion (or Mystic or whatever). I personally think keeping it Mystic rather than Psion would be better; easier to assign your own meaning to the words rather than go with people's preconcieved notion of what those words mean.
 

I don't like the idea of the aberrant mind because I'm not a huge Lovecraft fan. I don't like the icky aspect to it. I get that the psionic soul may feel a bit too generic, but I could shape it a lot more.
My big gripe with it is that they made an archetype based on a daelkyr creation & at every point they could do so they chose to dial that back to make room for less setting specific & very different generic lovecraft lore resulting in something that just feels like an odd attempt at forking in lovecraftian horror that fits no setting. It's like if they made a defiler/preserver & replaced all of the darksun specific lore related to those.
 

But then people would have to learn another system which is hard! /sarcasm
This is what I tend to argue what is a big flaw to 5e in comparison to others. The lack of game diversity. I understand "power creep" and "bloat" and all those other fear-inducing game terms that DMs unnecessarily panic over.

To me, however, that ultimately really mean "I'm the DM yet can't control what enters my games" on one side; and on the company side means "It's niche and we just want to only produce adventures and sprinkle a dose of new stuff to the core game material over and over again"

Except the analogy to that is like eating potatoes every single day, except they just cook it differently now and then..." Problem is, it's still potatoes and eating the same thing everyday well...tends to suck and lose flavor over time and very quickly.

Introducing a new class system of play would be nice and generate a bigger interest and yield to the customer base for several reasons. Yeah, they did release the Artificer not too long ago, but it didn't need its own system of play. Everything about it is just class features while using the spell slot system.

They could be scared it's not received very well, but wasn't that the point of Unearthed Arcana? To playtest a Psionic system that's both unique and fun without too much complexity, to bring to people's D&D games? It just seems to me after the last playtest with Mystic, they just gave up. Have they considered anyone's suggestions on how to tinker with the system to make it playable and acceptable, or did they only listen to the naysayers? Paizo doesn't ever have issues with it for Pathfinder

Clearly I'm a massive Psionics fan, so for people like myself, it's tragic what we're missing out on.

Were this any other edition prior to 4th, D&D would be more of a "all you can eat banquet and you pick and choose your dish" as opposed to "Here's mashed potatoes...here's potato skins...here's baked potato....". Even 3rd edition had The Mind's Eye and Complete Psionics to enhance the system now and then and that was highly appreciated.
 

Azzy

KMF DM
My big gripe with it is that they made an archetype based on a daelkyr creation & at every point they could do so they chose to dial that back to make room for less setting specific & very different generic lovecraft lore resulting in something that just feels like an odd attempt at forking in lovecraftian horror that fits no setting.
The Far Realm has been a thing for a while (since late 2e/3e?). Illithids, beholders, and other abberations (that have been attributed to the Far Realm since was introduced) have been around since the beginning. Greyhawk has its own Lovecraftian-esque diety, Tharizdun. The Cthulhu mythos was in the 1e Dieties & Demigods. There's already a Great Old One pact for Warlocks in the PHB. The Aberrant Mind being a "psionic" Sorcerer with its Far Realm connection (sounds really illithid-y) is really just touching on a motif that's well established in D&D. So, I have no idea why you find that it fits no setting.
 

The Far Realm has been a thing for a while (since late 2e/3e?). Illithids, beholders, and other abberations (that have been attributed to the Far Realm since was introduced) have been around since the beginning. Greyhawk has its own Lovecraftian-esque diety, Tharizdun. The Cthulhu mythos was in the 1e Dieties & Demigods. There's already a Great Old One pact for Warlocks in the PHB. The Aberrant Mind being a "psionic" Sorcerer with its Far Realm connection (sounds really illithid-y) is really just touching on a motif that's well established in D&D. So, I have no idea why you find that it fits no setting.
Your comment shows why it's so problematic how they tried to strip the lore to pretend it was lovecraftian rather than admit the setting lore it came from.
1: It's not based on those creatures you note, it's transparently based on this. Like beholder & mind flayer/illithid ithe dolgaunt, dolgrim, dolgrue,& others... they were all created by the daelkyr from xoriat, not the far realm. The far realm is a completely different place from xoriat. Although there are some similarities they are distinctly different places with lore of their own much like how the cities of waterdeep kalaman & greyhawk are not the same despite some similarities.
2. They got sued over that deities & demigods link you are citing & can read about it here
3. in case you missed it, it's based heavily on the daelkyr creations with oddly fitting lovecraftian elements bolted on... because of that it has jarring incongruities just as an archtype of defilers & preservers centered around mystara's weave & Mystryl's desire to subvert it would be both confusing and rage inducing.
 

see

Adventurer
Introducing a new class system of play would be nice and generate a bigger interest and yield to the customer base for several reasons
No, it wouldn't. We've got decades of D&D sales history to look back on here for modeling. Adding a wide variety of rules material to an edition consistently kills new player uptake and overall sales, while keeping it strictly limited results in continuous new player uptake and accompanying sales.

The real question is whether Tasha's is going to be the "too much" for this edition, where catering to the hard-core want-more fans ends the long and profitable ride 5th's been on and forces another edition reset. A new class and a bunch of change-every-existing-class "optional" features is a lot further beyond the core envelope than 5e's been pushed before.
 

Your comment shows why it's so problematic how they tried to strip the lore to pretend it was lovecraftian rather than admit the setting lore it came from.
1: It's not based on those creatures you note, it's transparently based on this. Like beholder & mind flayer/illithid ithe dolgaunt, dolgrim, dolgrue,& others... they were all created by the daelkyr from xoriat, not the far realm. The far realm is a completely different place from xoriat. Although there are some similarities they are distinctly different places with lore of their own much like how the cities of waterdeep kalaman & greyhawk are not the same despite some similarities.
2. They got sued over that deities & demigods link you are citing & can read about it here
3. in case you missed it, it's based heavily on the daelkyr creations with oddly fitting lovecraftian elements bolted on... because of that it has jarring incongruities just as an archtype of defilers & preservers centered around mystara's weave & Mystryl's desire to subvert it would be both confusing and rage inducing.

How do you justify it being "transparently" based on the Dolgaunt, when Mindflayers exist in most settings, and they are (in)famous for experimenting on and altering other races and beings to suite their ends?

Just because Eberron involves a good example of this, does not mean that no other setting involves them doing very similar things. The Duergar for example developed psychic powers from Mindflayer experiments.
 


Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top