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.

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, Mike Mearls, the guy with access to all the insider data, believes X.

It's fair to question that belief like you're doing. It's not fair however to dismiss someone's statement based on that belief as "baseless superstition."

See the difference? It's not baseless (we have a basis now) and it's not superstition (Mike Mearls really did repeatedly make those claims in his official capacity).

As to your "guy with access to all the insider data" point, two words not only call the validity of that data into question but call into question if what he said should be considered with all the weight you are giving it even if we ignore context & say for the sake of argument that it supports your claim as well as you think....

Spoiler

GREYHAWK INITIATIVE

I don't think you truly understand just how out of control the d&d release cycle was in the past. Stepping away from that is certainly something that could be attributed to success, but the disparity is critical. Our sun (Sol) is a medium sized star, but if someone spent a significant amount of time talking about gigantically massive stars like Rigel or Aldebaran(comparison) before switching tracks to say that Sol is a small star the prior talk about massive stars is what that "small" is quantified against.

Edit: I've got nothing against Mearls. I agree with him on some things & disagree with him on others,but what he said is not the slam dunk you seem to think it is,

 

[Mistwell]

As to your "guy with access to all the insider data" point, two words not only call the validity of that data into question but call into question if what he said should be considered with all the weight you are giving it even if we ignore context & say for the sake of argument that it supports your claim as well as you think....

Spoiler

GREYHAWK INITIATIVE
View attachment 128208

I don't think you truly understand just how out of control the d&d release cycle was in the past. Stepping away from that is certainly something that could be attributed to success, but the disparity is critical. Our sun (Sol) is a medium sized star, but if someone spent a significant amount of time talking about gigantically massive stars like Rigel or Aldebaran(comparison) before switching tracks to say that Sol is a small star the prior talk about massive stars is what that "small" is quantified against.

The "weight I am giving it" is simply to say it's not "baseless superstition." That's an incredibly low bar. No matter how much you want to strawman my position, that remains my position. It's not baseless (there is a basis) and it's not superstition (he really did state it - it's not people's imagination). Everything else you're saying questioning his statements does not, in any way, show it's baseless or superstition.

I truly understand the prior release schedule. I truly have been here since the year 2000. I truly have a decent memory for all of this. You truly should not be questioning what I do and do not understand.

 

[Mistwell]

I hate mechanics like that. "Yesterday I knew how to perform these several abilities and had been able to do them for months. Today I am completely unable to do any of them, but I suddenly know how to do these other several abilities that I've never even attempted before."

Ugh! No thanks.

I agree it's wonky and breaks world believability.

I also think it's sometimes OK to handwaive that for the fun of the game. So I am cool with making it a DM option.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The Aberant Soul Sorcerer isn't based on dolgaunts, and there is nothing confusing or rage inducing about it. You're just reading into it, things which aren't there.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I hate mechanics like that. "Yesterday I knew how to perform these several abilities and had been able to do them for months. Today I am completely unable to do any of them, but I suddenly know how to do these other several abilities that I've never even attempted before."

Ugh! No thanks.

I'm fine with it as long as long as the DM and Player give good explanations for it. I've used this "rule" before in my own campaigns, and the players liked it and it fit into the campaign, not breaking my player's suspension of disbelief.

 

[tetrasodium]

The Aberant Soul Sorcerer isn't based on dolgaunts, and there is nothing confusing or rage inducing about it. You're just reading into it, things which aren't there.

Sure thing bud. Problem with that hypothesis of yours is that there is no setting where the far realm mindflayers and so on deeply woven into anything but plot armor surrounding isolated adventures let alone lore except for the one where dolgaunts mindflayers beholders and so on were created by the daelkyr.

Meta settings like spelljammer and planescape with the hubris to claim their lore applies to other settings van suck it up and pay the price for that by accepting that they need to themselves fit other settings not the other way around.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure thing bud. Problem with that hypothesis of yours is that there is no setting where the far realm mindflayers and so on deeply woven into anything but plot armor surrounding isolated adventures let alone lore except for the one where dolgaunts mindflayers beholders and so on were created by the daelkyr.

Meta settings like spelljammer and planescape with the hubris to claim their lore applies to other settings van suck it up and pay the price for that by accepting that they need to themselves fit other settings not the other way around.

Might want to try again on that first paragraph long sentence. Hard to parse.

The story of the mindflayers in 5e DnD is literally exactly that they do this sort of thing. The aberrant soul sorcerer is based on the basic lore of 5e dnd. Full stop.

 

[tetrasodium]

Might want to try again on that first paragraph long sentence. Hard to parse.

The story of the mindflayers in 5e DnD is literally exactly that they do this sort of thing. The aberrant soul sorcerer is based on the basic lore of 5e dnd. Full stop.

a creature without a setting is nothing but fluff because what happens within a setting overrules it. The monster manual PHB & other core books is not the place for metasetings like spelljammer & planescape to dump their lore and expect to remain pristine simply because their lore does not apply to every setting.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm fine with it as long as long as the DM and Player give good explanations for it. I've used this "rule" before in my own campaigns, and the players liked it and it fit into the campaign, not breaking my player's suspension of disbelief.

Yeah. It depends. I once had an evil goddess change 2 of a fallen paladin's levels to cleric when he fell and started worshipping her. I'm talking about it as a general rule like it's being listed as.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yeah. It depends. I once had an evil goddess change 2 of a fallen paladin's levels to cleric when he fell and started worshipping her. I'm talking about it as a general rule like it's being listed as.

What would you prefer it to be listed as? I'm fine with it as it is, it allows DMs to know that this is an option.