D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Cap'n Kobold]

Any PC takes ritual caster, they can cast Leomund's tiny hut and forces a long rest.

?
Who are they getting that spell from?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Gonna do it again.
Yep, the wizard made big sacrifices simply because he made them. These choices were real sacrifices. Beside its versatility, no wizard subclasses (save one) has anything remotely half as powerful as what the sorcerers, bards and warlocks had to compensate for their then "limited spell list". Portent might have been the only feature remotely strong yet, usable only twice a day for most the Diviner's career.

Now, your friends the warlock, bard and sorcerer get better than the wizard's versatility at absolutely no cost.

You keep looking only one aspect and yet, the whole thread brought so many things showing that now, the wizard sacrificing quite a few of his known spells is now useless. 44 unchangeable known spells vs 185 for the sorcerer. Yep, this is clearly a well balanced rule.

Well, since you will refuse to engage with my evidence, I will simply say you are wrong about the wizard abilities.

I could back it up, but why bother.

 

[Helldritch]

Well, since you will refuse to engage with my evidence, I will simply say you are wrong about the wizard abilities.

I could back it up, but why bother.

You shown no evidence whatsoever. You just repeat everything you said in your other post which was focusing on info gathering. Which I clearly state was not the sole point of the wizard but that in ordre to do it, the wizard had to sacrifice 7 (sometimes more) of his 44 spell known while the other classes were sacrificing nothing to do the same job.

Again, you missed the point of the argument because you thought you had a bone to pick on. But this bone is just one face of the problem. You still fail to see the rule as a whole and try to nitpick a small part of what you think is a weak point. You see it as a weak point because you don't play high level and we do. We did the tests and you tried to invalidate the tests by minimizing both the experience of those doing it and the fact that these tests have been used for more than one additional rule. And they did find potential abuses very fast.

On an other forum, I was one of the first to claim the problems of not following the 6-8 encounters per day as a potential problem. People laughed at me, and yet, today, most people agree that it is a good thing to follow the guide line or to modify the rest rule to make sure that the 5 mwd does not come back to gnaw at your game.

And to finish, If I were the only one claiming that the wizards subclasses are weak, read this post and many others on the subject. You're in for a big surprise. Versatility is about the only real good thing about wizards. Now it's everyone's shtick...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Gonna do it again.
Yep, the wizard made big sacrifices simply because he made them. These choices were real sacrifices. Beside its versatility, no wizard subclasses (save one) has anything remotely half as powerful as what the sorcerers, bards and warlocks had to compensate for their then "limited spell list". Portent might have been the only feature remotely strong yet, usable only twice a day for most the Diviner's career.

Now, your friends the warlock, bard and sorcerer get better than the wizard's versatility at absolutely no cost.

You keep looking only one aspect and yet, the whole thread brought so many things showing that now, the wizard sacrificing quite a few of his known spells is now useless. 44 unchangeable known spells vs 185 for the sorcerer. Yep, this is clearly a well balanced rule.


Yes, but now who needs wizards now? Versatility is now in the hands of others at no costs and what they lacked in versatility was compensated with strong class options. Now they get an even better versatility AND their original compensations. What a deal! (save for the wizards...)

That sounds so wrong. I don't like the rule either, but the sorcerer being more versatile is bollocks.
Being able to switch a single spell at a time does not make you versatile. It makes you able to adapt just a tiny bit. The sorcerer does not even know as much spells as the wizard can prepare. The sorcerer can't swap much if something unforseen happens. Except for very high levels, a sorcerer is always so heavily restricted in his spells that they barely has space to even switch it up. Not to forget, that the wizard can cast their rituals all the time.

If I would use the rule, I would adapt it a bit. probably I would allow the sorcerer to swap a single spell during a week of downtime or so. Maybe they get a free spell swap during a long rest every level. But I would certainly not allow swapping happily every day.
What I see in Tasha's seems to be the maximum possible what does not break a game. But you really need to chose, which option to take and which to ignore and which to just inspire you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You shown no evidence whatsoever. You just repeat everything you said in your other post which was focusing on info gathering. Which I clearly state was not the sole point of the wizard but that in ordre to do it, the wizard had to sacrifice 7 (sometimes more) of his 44 spell known while the other classes were sacrificing nothing to do the same job.

Again, you missed the point of the argument because you thought you had a bone to pick on. But this bone is just one face of the problem. You still fail to see the rule as a whole and try to nitpick a small part of what you think is a weak point. You see it as a weak point because you don't play high level and we do. We did the tests and you tried to invalidate the tests by minimizing both the experience of those doing it and the fact that these tests have been used for more than one additional rule. And they did find potential abuses very fast.

On an other forum, I was one of the first to claim the problems of not following the 6-8 encounters per day as a potential problem. People laughed at me, and yet, today, most people agree that it is a good thing to follow the guide line or to modify the rest rule to make sure that the 5 mwd does not come back to gnaw at your game.

And to finish, If I were the only one claiming that the wizards subclasses are weak, read this post and many others on the subject. You're in for a big surprise. Versatility is about the only real good thing about wizards. Now it's everyone's shtick...

And still, no one forces you to use that rule at your table if it does not suit your game. And at high level, it is very strange to assume the wizard has not spend any money on expanding their spell list.

 

[6ENow!]

That sounds so wrong. I don't like the rule either, but the sorcerer being more versatile is bollocks.

Did you read my post showing 4 variants a Sorcerer could make with less than a week of downtime during level 5? Seriously, I am asking--not being snarky.

It had 24 completely unique spells covering 4 different scenarios. No Wizard at level 5 could hope to match that IMO unless you have an extremely generous DM.

probably I would allow the sorcerer to swap a single spell during a week of downtime or so. Maybe they get a free spell swap during a long rest every level. But I would certainly not allow swapping happily every day.

And those are the types of options @Helldritch and myself have both been suggesting that would make the feature more reasonable. While I am not thrilled with the concept, itself, at least giving it a cost of some sort and/or having it take much longer (which I think would suit the play style this was more intented for...) would go a long way towards balancing it out.

As you, yourself, say, "But I would certainly not all swapping happily every day."

 

[Helldritch]

And still, no one forces you to use that rule at your table if it does not suit your game.

Point given dozens of pages ago friend.
But what about those that will think this is a good rule and will think it balanced when it is not?
How many games will be scrapped because of one rule?

I remember the days of endless unbalanced "prestige classes" that destroyed more than one 3.xed games. But hey, who cares about the inexperienced? I am one of the few it seems...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Point given dozens of pages ago friend.
But what about those that will think this is a good rule and will think it balanced when it is not?
How many games will be scrapped because of one rule?

I remember the days of endless unbalanced "prestige classes" that destroyed more than one 3.xed games. But hey, who cares about the inexperienced? I am one of the few it seems...

You are way overreacting.

 

[Helldritch]

You are way overreacting.

If you say so...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Did you read my post showing 4 variants a Sorcerer could make with less than a week of downtime during level 5? Seriously, I am asking--not being snarky.

It had 24 completely unique spells covering 4 different scenarios. No Wizard at level 5 could hope to match that IMO unless you have an extremely generous DM.


And those are the types of options @Helldritch and myself have both been suggesting that would make the feature more reasonable. While I am not thrilled with the concept, itself, at least giving it a cost of some sort and/or having it take much longer (which I think would suit the play style this was more intented for...) would go a long way towards balancing it out.

As you, yourself, say, "But I would certainly not all swapping happily every day."

Yes, I read your post about 4 spells list swappable in a week and thing it is not how my games at that level play. Weeks of downtime where swaps amcould be critical are rare. As stated: I don't really like that rule. But saying it does break a typical game seems very wrong from my experience. But yoir experience might differ. I also don't like the free racial swaps. They won't break the game but in my opinion are also way too generous and antithematic.
But I can see the difference between personal preference which includes feelings about things which are antithematical and rules that break games and invalidate other classes or races.
Tasha's Cauldron of everythings seems like a book that you need to carefully implement into your game. A bit like the options in the DMG, maybe even a bit more so. Xanathars was mostly conservative in what it offered, still I think Tasha's has its place... and even if it is just to throw options out and see what sticks. It could very well be some kind of playtest for 5.5.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you say so...

At least that is what I read out of your post. I might be wrong, but I am probably right.
No game will be scrapped because of an optional rule that is not borderline broken...

 

[Chaosmancer]

You shown no evidence whatsoever. You just repeat everything you said in your other post which was focusing on info gathering. Which I clearly state was not the sole point of the wizard but that in ordre to do it, the wizard had to sacrifice 7 (sometimes more) of his 44 spell known while the other classes were sacrificing nothing to do the same job.

Seven? I counted four.

And, maybe I repeated things because you said nothing to disprove or refute any of those things.

For example, the Sorcerer is still not the one making the Wizard obsolete, in exact opposition to many of your own posts early on.

Again, you missed the point of the argument because you thought you had a bone to pick on. But this bone is just one face of the problem. You still fail to see the rule as a whole and try to nitpick a small part of what you think is a weak point. You see it as a weak point because you don't play high level and we do. We did the tests and you tried to invalidate the tests by minimizing both the experience of those doing it and the fact that these tests have been used for more than one additional rule. And they did find potential abuses very fast.

What evidence other than me disagreeing with you makes you think I don't play at high-level? I've run multiple campaigns with characters at levels 15 and up. Yet, you want to set yourself up as somehow being more correct than me, because you have experience I don't .

And yes, I am trying to point out that your tests aren't working well for this rule. You have a scenario where this rule is clearly at its most powerful, perfect information by the players, and long experience with that particular party.

To misquote a famous person, "You can't judge a fish on how well it climbs a tree" you need a test that works for the rule. Your tests work well for 90% of all rules, but this one it is giving you skewed results I think, because it is providing exactly the rare scenario that this rule shines at its brightest.

On an other forum, I was one of the first to claim the problems of not following the 6-8 encounters per day as a potential problem. People laughed at me, and yet, today, most people agree that it is a good thing to follow the guide line or to modify the rest rule to make sure that the 5 mwd does not come back to gnaw at your game.

Congratulations.... and how many times have you been proven wrong?

Just because you were right once doesn't mean you are right now, and I have no idea why you want to even bring this up, except as a way of saying that you are some sort of "early warning system" that has always correctly interpretted the impact of the rules on every gaming table.

And to finish, If I were the only one claiming that the wizards subclasses are weak, read this post and many others on the subject. You're in for a big surprise. Versatility is about the only real good thing about wizards. Now it's everyone's shtick...

And I still say you are wrong. I've read and seen quite a bit about wizards. But, you will just tell me I'm wrong, so why not cut to the chase. Saves me effort and time.

 

[6ENow!]

Yes, I read your post about 4 spells list swappable in a week and thing it is not how my games at that level play. Weeks of downtime where swaps amcould be critical are rare. As stated: I don't really like that rule. But saying it does break a typical game seems very wrong from my experience. But yoir experience might differ. I also don't like the free racial swaps. They won't break the game but in my opinion are also way too generous and antithematic.
But I can see the difference between personal preference which includes feelings about things which are antithematical and rules that break games and invalidate other classes or races.
Tasha's Cauldron of everythings seems like a book that you need to carefully implement into your game. A bit like the options in the DMG, maybe even a bit more so. Xanathars was mostly conservative in what it offered, still I think Tasha's has its place... and even if it is just to throw options out and see what sticks. It could very well be some kind of playtest for 5.5.

Ok, just checking. Myself and @TwoSix agreed several pages ago LOL that a big part of this feature does come down to play style. So, I completely agree with that-- I just know of my group it won't work as is-- maybe over longer periods, or it just won't be used at all.

I also don't like the free-hand racial wheeling and dealing that is apparently going to happen. So far, neither does anyone else in our group when it comes to ASIs, etc. Swapping armor and weapon proficiencies for other weapons or tools, etc? Doesn't bother me much really, but the ASIs do. All of the new UA feats will not be adopted in any game I run, either. Feats that detract from the unique features of classes are horrible IMO and lead to more power-gaming. Yes, some of those feats are thematic (such as Baker or whatever), but such concepts also reach the realms of just plain silly. shrug

Finally, WotC does release some things that (for my style of game) are game breaking. We either nerf them or don't allow them. The larger point @Helldritch is making is that many DMs lack the experience and insight into game balance that veterans tend to have--and so blindly adopting such new features could have disastrous results. At which point, hopefully they will adjust them to suit their styles or drop them.

The paradigm of what D&D is has obviously changed a lot over the years and editions. It will probably soon reach a point I won't bother playing anymore unless I can find people who want to dust off 1E (mixed with a little 2E) and play that. For many months now I have been disappointed in the direction I see 5E going-- this is all just another disappointment.

As an aside, a player in our group (who ran CoS) bought Rime of the Frostmaiden and gave it to me to run-- because he wants to experience it as a player. I've read through the premise, which I am extremely disappointed in, and know if I run it I will have to change that first thing. Honestly, I don't want to run it, but feel I owe it to the other player so he can enjoy the adventure. I like modules occasionally, but 90% of my games are homebrew.

Anyway... I've really had enough of this thread LOL (nothing personal against YOU! ) so I'll be signing off from it now.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope for the majority of tables who accept this material with open arms I will be wrong. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, I just want to be the voice of caution.

Cheers!

 

[Helldritch]

I feel the exact same way as @dnd4vr . I hope this won't bring back horrors that I saw in 3.xed, the debacle of 4ed and push younger gamer toward an other game.
I too retire from this thread.

 

[OB1]

Don't mind the new rule for spell swapping, but am hoping that my suggestion in the UA feedback survey that Wizards get to remove the long rest requirement for changing their prepared spells makes it into Tasha's. Think the extra flexibility of allowing a Wizard to change their spells easily mid-day would both be a fair power up for them and give enhanced incentive to quest for more spells to add to their spellbook and the gold to do it. Would also re-establish them as the most versatile caster (if such a thing is important to you).

 

[Dionysos]

Don't mind the new rule for spell swapping, but am hoping that my suggestion in the UA feedback survey that Wizards get to remove the long rest requirement for changing their prepared spells makes it into Tasha's. Think the extra flexibility of allowing a Wizard to change their spells easily mid-day would both be a fair power up for them and give enhanced incentive to quest for more spells to add to their spellbook and the gold to do it. Would also re-establish them as the most versatile caster (if such a thing is important to you).

Yes indeed. Reading this thread, I’ve been wondering if this whole argument might turn out to be based on a faulty premise, that wizards don’t also get something that increases their versatility.

 

[Vael]

Yes indeed. Reading this thread, I’ve been wondering if this whole argument might turn out to be based on a faulty premise, that wizards don’t also get something that increases their versatility.

Jumping the gun and being overly hyperbolic? Gamers? I'm shocked, shocked, I say!

 

[SkidAce]

 

[Chaosmancer]

With both Helldritch and dnd4vr leaving the thread, I won't quote or mention them, but I do want to address a point dnd4vr made, that I find myself disagreeing with a little bit.

That blindly implementing these rules will have disastrous effects for certain DMs. With most games being low level, and most games not involving massive amounts of scouting and information gathering (these are newer players and DMs supposedly) then all of the things being mentioned as making this rule broken... won't be there.

Instead, this rule is "worse" for veteran groups with very experienced DMs, or highly competitive players with less experienced DMs. And in the latter case, this rule isn't going to make things much worse than they would already be for that group.

So, I don't really see this ruining anyones game, and if it does, I think it will be kind of obvious if it is this rule doing it, since it will be fairly obvious when the players are utilizing this rule.

 

[MoonSong]

With both Helldritch and dnd4vr leaving the thread, I won't quote or mention them, but I do want to address a point dnd4vr made, that I find myself disagreeing with a little bit.

That blindly implementing these rules will have disastrous effects for certain DMs. With most games being low level, and most games not involving massive amounts of scouting and information gathering (these are newer players and DMs supposedly) then all of the things being mentioned as making this rule broken... won't be there.

Instead, this rule is "worse" for veteran groups with very experienced DMs, or highly competitive players with less experienced DMs. And in the latter case, this rule isn't going to make things much worse than they would already be for that group.

So, I don't really see this ruining anyones game, and if it does, I think it will be kind of obvious if it is this rule doing it, since it will be fairly obvious when the players are utilizing this rule.

Another argument they threw around was that spell versatility somehow break bards and magical secrets. And this one fails to understand magical secrets. Magical secrets isn't "pick a spell from another list, any list" rather, "add a spell to the bard list and you learn it as a bard spell". There is a longstanding ruling that any spell gotten through magical secrets can be retrained only for a spell in the bard list. Spell versatility doesn't change that fact. Yes, bards can choose some of these wizard only spells, but they can't freely switch them around with spell versatility.