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

[Lidgar]

Less.

As in, we don’t disallow it, but only one person in our group has used a subclass from it (Rune Knight). Rest of us looked at it and collectively said “nah”.

I’m not too concerned about whatever direction 5e takes. If one thing 4e/Pathfinder showed us, is that there will always be options for different play styles.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Even without twilight clerics I think Clerics won the powergamers 1st place reward

CODzilla is way weaker than 3e but they are VERY much still a thing

 

[Helldritch]

Frankly that is what has gotten most use from us—-the feats.

I flirted with taking a. Warlock with an efreet patron. My friend took the twilight cleric.

I guess the basic issue for us is incongruent flavor. It’s hard for me to pinpoint but its a bit “flashy” and superhero for us.

I enjoyed the crusher feat with a mace wielding Paladin. I think I will be taking fey touched with an arcana cleric.

Yep, the feats are its only redeeming quality in our opinions and still, we feel the feats in the PHB are more than enough for the game. This ain't 3ed where feats were given in addition to ASI. Most feats come into play either through playing VHumans (1st level) or around level 4 or 8 (6 or 8 for fighters). And most of the time, players rush their main ability to 20 ASAP usually. If the allocation of feats were more frequent across all classes, maybe. But for the moment, they're mainly for flavour as those in the PHB do the job quite well.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I allow everything in Tasha's even though it is stuffed with power creep. The way I figure this, power creep doesn't really worry me unless and until some of the players stop having fun. My fun derives directly from watching them have fun, so as long as they're enjoying the game, I'm happy.

 

[Parmandur]

I allow everything in Tasha's even though it is stuffed with power creep. The way I figure this, power creep doesn't really worry me unless and until some of the players stop having fun. My fun derives directly from watching them have fun, so as long as they're enjoying the game, I'm happy.

I don't think it is necessarily "power creep" as was happening in 2E (where designers just slowly made each optiom better each publicstion as a sales tool willy nilly), but a general rebalancing based on years of playtestijg in the field. Aim for the Rogue, for instance, just helps Rogues get what the designers intended for them to get every turn.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I don't think it is necessarily "power creep" as was happening in 2E, but a general rebranding based on years of playtestijg in the field. Aim for the Rogue, for instance, just helps Rogues get what the designers intended for them to get every turn.

I mean, okay--I can accept it's a rebalancing in line with original intent. What I noticed in it was just that many feats, spells, and options were really good: good enough to obviate a bunch of things in the PHB.

I suspect eventually I'll move over to something like beancounter's position: everything except floating stats.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, okay--I can accept it's a rebalancing in line with original intent. What I noticed in it was just that many feats, spells, and options were really good: good enough to obviate a bunch of things in the PHB.

I suspect eventually I'll move over to something like beancounter's position: everything except floating stats.

Well, in some cases, sure. But I think the changes serve the balance of the game, and presage the integrated Edition revision to come nicely.

 

[Blue]

I allow all of it. All spells, all subclasses. The optional features. Floating racial ASI.

Yes, two of the subclasses are perhaps the top subclasses for that class, but having run with one of them the practical benefits of it, taken in the context of my table (my DMing style + my players) have not been OP, just a strong subclass.

The floating ASI allows people to pick race/class combos they would have been disadvantaged to explore before. Racial abilities sadly aren't a large mechanical force, and again in the context of my table all it has done is allow more creativity in coming up with characters, not power creep at all.

For the most part the optional features are filling in gaps. In other places I feel that they are taking classes on the lower end of the power curve and bringing them closer to the middle. That is a buff, but I don't consider it an unwelcome one.

 

[Redwizard007]

We use it pretty extensively. As a DM I allow all the spells, feats, and optional class abilities but I do draw the line at the Twilight Cleric. I can live with an overpowered subclass or a poorly designed no-coherent-theme subclass, but I'm not going to tolerate one that his both.

I guess I understand the "overpowered" argument, even if I disagree with it, but where are you pulling the "no-coherent-theme" thing from? It's pretty obviously a guardian-of-the-night concept.

I just nerf the darkvision to 90' and call it a day.

 

[jgsugden]

I allow everything from WotC. I also add a lot of homebrew in addition to the established materials. As the games I run are generally very well received, and as most DMs I know also run good games and also allow all materials ... the idea that you 'need' or even 'should' restrict any official WotC rules, products, options, etc... is highly suspect to me.

When a new DM tells me that they do not allow certain things, it is an orange flag. I usually ask why and then set expectations based upon their answers. The times that the 'orange flag' elevates to a 'red flag' are when the DM's concerns boil down to concerns that the PCs can use their abilities to do exactly what they're intended to do, but that means they can't run their low level adventure designs against higher level PCs because the PCs can't be allowed to just 'magic' past a problem. Those are the DMs that don't want the PCs to be able to do anything outside of the DM's narrow deisgns. Those are the DMs that want to have players there to play the DM's game - rather than to create a game together as a group. Those are the DMs that use their players to play the DM's game.

I'm not saying all of these orange flags elevate to red flags, either. There are other reasons to not allow certain options - but in my experience, the DMs that restrict options more often than not have trouble letting the players really contribute to where the game goes.