D&D 5E Is Tasha's More or Less The Universal Standard?


Basically how many people are you aware of using Tasha's as is out in the wild? Do DMs allow it, parts of it,not allow it or just not aware of it.

How about online for those of you who play online?

To me there's a lot of power creep in in and parts of it obsolete the phb. Only managed one short campaign before Covid restrictions killed the game.

Anyway thinking of starting a new game and drawing a line in the sand as I haven't paid much attention to post Tasha's despite owning several books eg Fizbans, Ravenloft and one of the adventures whose name I forget.

Can't play so no gaming and care factor is low atm. No gaming in-store but an event at a club/pub/bar/restaurant with 200 of my closest friends is fine yay.

Well we technically can but no one wants to game wearing masks and it's not worth the owners time opening.

log in or register to remove this ad


Our campaign went on indefinite hiatus thanks to Covid before Tasha's came out, so it never came up. If it had, we would probably have done the same as we did for every non-core book - all the DMs vote on what gets put in and what doesn't.

Personally, I would have expected us not to bring in the alternate class features, but at least some of the subclasses and likely all the new magic items and spells. Custom Lineage probably would have prompted an interesting discussion, though.

OTOH, our current campaign was supposed to wrap up within the next year, so we might have also just ignored it.

All of it?
It depends. Like I allow a player to freely swap any class features they feel like for the ones from Tasha's. But I don't use all the optional rules from Tasha's in each game, cause I have not looked at them all, but if a player wants to use something, I basically just take a look and say sure.
Like what are you thinking of that you feel is overpowered.


Oh, I guess I don't use the options to swap things when you gain an ASI, bit that's generally because I'm more generous and if an option is chosen that doesn't vibe with the player, I allow them to swap it.
I think they must have found that many DMs were being more generous than the change, but they wanted to get it more plain that it wouldn't break the game to allow some retraining.

Greg K

If I were running 5e, I would allow some of the proficieny tradeoffs (on a case by case basis or as a tool for myself as DM to customize), some of the fighter options (and, maybe rogue options), and a few spells, but not much else.


Carnyfex Dynastarum
I have a twilight cleric in the party I DM. So, well, Thas is allowed.
While I like most of Tasha's stuff, I don' like the custom lineages and races. I have allowed only to swap the +1 of the races to any ability score that is important to the class you're playing.
Last edited:


I only ran one campaign in the past and might run another one later this year, and I only run games with only stuff from the PHB.
Primarily because I think it interferes with the game when players are too focused on their character sheets and optimization. It's already bad enough with the PHB as it is, and bringing further books in only makes it worse. I also feel I need to understand all the abilities of the PCs and the abilities they might gain in the forseeable future, and I don't want to have to memorize additional books that I think are completely unnecessary anyway.

In the mini campaign I ran I allowed all of it and in the games I've played in DMs allow all of it. I don't see why I'd ban any of it going forward with the next campaign unless it's purely a thematic decision.

I feel like the calls of overpowered-ness or power creep are extremely exaggerated. Every time a book comes out, 99% of it could be underpowered but if there's one or two desirable options, some folks will declare the whole thing broken.
Last edited:

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement