Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8607699" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Tasha's has stuff in it I don't like, both too high (Twilight Cleric, the save-DC-boosters Ondath mentions) and too low (soulknife). On the other hand, Xanathars had Hexblade and Storm Sorcerer, SCAG had bladesinger and battlerager, and PHB had Zealot and Moon Druid (and Witchbolt and True Strike and Simulacrum and Force Cage and sorcadins and two weapon fighting and one-handed quarterstaves with shields and PAM and...). There isn't a time in the edition's lifespan where good balance actually existed (just 'better balance than _____' and 'worst balance than _____'). If you include the Eberron, MtG, and Acquisitions Incorporated books, things go even farther off the rails.I'm not saying anyone is wrong if they don't like Tasha's. I find it an exceedingly hit-or-miss book. However, what I don't think it is is especially unique or unusual in that regard.Edit: For me, the measure of a book is: What does it add or facilitate? Tasha's lets players in my groups: play rangers without feeling like they are fighting the game all the way to do so, play monks even if you aren't an expert on action economy and tactical thinking, play psionic theme-able character types, play fae-aligned non-cha-based classes, play sorcerers without having to weigh every spell-known choice for hours during level-up, play an interesting magic-themed fighter that doesn't mostly just cast shield, and play races against type. All these are positives. To the negative, I or the other DM have to watch out for the occasional OP situation, but again that didn't start with Tasha's so it isn't much of an additional burden.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 8607699, member: 6799660"] Tasha's has stuff in it I don't like, both too high (Twilight Cleric, the save-DC-boosters Ondath mentions) and too low (soulknife). On the other hand, Xanathars had Hexblade and Storm Sorcerer, SCAG had bladesinger and battlerager, and PHB had Zealot and Moon Druid (and [I]Witchbolt [/I]and [I]True Strike[/I] and [I]Simulacrum [/I]and [I]Force Cage[/I] and sorcadins and two weapon fighting and one-handed quarterstaves with shields and PAM and...). There isn't a time in the edition's lifespan where good balance actually existed (just 'better balance than _____' and 'worst balance than _____'). If you include the [I]Eberron, MtG[/I], and [I]Acquisitions Incorporated[/I] books, things go even farther off the rails. I'm not saying anyone is wrong if they don't like Tasha's. I find it an exceedingly hit-or-miss book. However, what I don't think it is is especially unique or unusual in that regard. Edit: For me, the measure of a book is: What does it add or facilitate? Tasha's lets players in my groups: play rangers without feeling like they are fighting the game all the way to do so, play monks even if you aren't an expert on action economy and tactical thinking, play psionic theme-able character types, play fae-aligned non-cha-based classes, play sorcerers without having to weigh every spell-known choice for hours during level-up, play an interesting magic-themed fighter that doesn't mostly just cast [I]shield[/I], and play races against type. All these are positives. To the negative, I or the other DM have to watch out for the occasional OP situation, but again that didn't start with Tasha's so it isn't much of an additional burden. [/QUOTE]

Verification