Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7034872" data-source="post: 8608862">From reading this thread, I've wondered why the advantage of better odds of hitting and better damage when hitting don't subjectively appeal to me as much as some of the feats do, and I think I've figured it out: as a player, I tend to prefer tactics that forestall a fight over things that serve well in one. So when I play a sorcerer, for instance, Subtle Spell is a first pick. I like to play the sort of caster who gathers information about the environment and possible foes and prevents information-gathering conducted against our party. I also habitually favor spells that break down enemy defenses or reduce their offensive capabilities, and for this sort of play, some feats and spells in Tasha's are just wonderful.But it is broken? I grew up in the early AD&D era, and the notion of OP back then was rather different from today's. Maybe I'm too stuck in the past, but I still think of "broken" as meaning a lot more than "This character class is more powerful than these others." To my aging mind, it's more like, "This character class consistently turns every adventure into a one-person ego trip." Tentatively, I don't get that sense from Tasha's (but I also have never tried playing a Twilight Cleric, so who knows?).</blockquote>