D&D 5E New class options in Tasha

[Gammadoodler]

So how would you feel about giving fighters the sneak attack? Would you also think that it would be weird that if people though that it would make rogues feel less special and muddy the differentiation between these two classes? Because this is kinda like that.

Hmm. It's interesting that this is the go to feature for rogue specialness. I might be alone in this, but looking at the rogue class, sneak attack is barely a blip on the radar. Like it's necessary to prevent combat obsolescence, but 'the niche', to me at least, is tied up in skill expertise/reliable talent type stuff. Every class can generate damage. Far fewer classes can duplicate the skill interactions.

That said, I do understand the sentiment that sorcerers are getting to play with the wizards' toys. Just seems like wizards also have access to so many additional spells on their list, I'm not sure how important that particular toy is in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Flamestrike]

So how would you feel about giving fighters the sneak attack? Would you also think that it would be weird that if people though that it would make rogues feel less special and muddy the differentiation between these two classes? Because this is kinda like that.

Can you (or anyone else) give me an example of how this is OP in practice?

Literally the only thing I can think of is a case where a Sorcerer has selected all Fire spells, and knows (in advance) that they're going to be running up against Fire immune creatures, and he has a Long rest or two up his sleeve to swap (say) Fire ball for Lightning Bolt.

And even then, I see that as a feature, and not a bug of the new rule. The alternate choice leaves one player doing nothing for multiple sessions.

Not only does the Wizard have enough spells prepared to likely have both Lightning Bolt AND Fireball prepared, he could (in the same long rest) swap out his entire repertoire of spells prepared for an entirely different list of spells, selected from a much better choice of spells he can learn.

 

[Flamestrike]

If Rangers were suddenly better than monks with unarmed strikes, would monks lose something in that scenario?

There is a Fighting Style in the new class options that grants a 1d8 damage unarmed strike.

So Rangers (Fighters and Paladins) ARE suddenly better than Monks at unarmed fighting (at least at low level).

Sort of. They dont get the bonus action attack, or flurry etc. But hey.

 

[Flamestrike]

This thread has more hyperbole than literally every single thread in the history of the internet, and if it doesnt stop soon it'll ruin the game as we know it.

And I hate hyperbole.

Please, can someone think of the children!

 

[Helldritch]

You hyperbole yourself by diminishing the impact this "optional" rule will have.

This rule does affect versatility in a major way and denying it is simply hiding your head in the sand. Wizard pretty much only have versatility on their side and as I said, just by taking the feat ritual caster you just outdo the wizard. One feat is all it takes now to simply make the wizard obsolete.

I have seen so many non sense about just giving more spell to the wizard by putting more scrolls, spell books or whatever on the path of a wizard player that my eyes are almost bleeding. You know that you propose to bypass a rule with.... DM's Fiat!!!!!

If these kind of solutions had been offered for any classes but the wizards, we would have seen an uproar of protests going as far as Saturn. You don't correct a bad rule with DM's Fiat...

I admit that the sorcerer needs a bit more love and flavor. Adding more sorcery point would have been better option but going the way this rule goes is out of proportions. It is not by destroying the relevance of a class that you correct the problematic of an other class that is caused exactly by... DM's Fiat in the first place.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm still struggling to see how the Sorcerer being able to replace ONE spell known per long rest in an optional rule variant somehow destroys the versatility of the Wizard who can replace all their spells prepared per long rest.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm still struggling to see how the Sorcerer being able to replace ONE spell known per long rest in an optional rule variant somehow destroys the versatility of the Wizard who can replace all their spells prepared per long rest.

It means after a nap sorcerer can has access to any spell they could theoretically have. This makes them significantly better magic-based problem solver than the wizard, whose thing this used to be. To me this seems like a colossal shift. Going from having access to handful of spells to, what, over a hundred? I have super hard time understanding how people can't see what a massive change that is.

 

[TwoSix]

I have seen so many non sense about just giving more spell to the wizard by putting more scrolls, spell books or whatever on the path of a wizard player that my eyes are almost bleeding. You know that you propose to bypass a rule with.... DM's Fiat!!!!!

The game can only approach balance with explicit, intentional heaping doses of DM Fiat. There are simply too many variables between different kinds of campaigns to expect otherwise.

WotC serves the community far better by giving more options, freedom, and guidance than by trying to build some hypothetical "balanced" ruleset that is only actually balanced for a tiny subset of pure RAW games.

 

[TwoSix]

It means after a nap sorcerer can has access to any spell they could theoretically have. This makes them significantly better magic-based problem solver than the wizard, whose thing this used to be. To me this seems like a colossal shift. Going from having access to handful of spells to, what, over a hundred? I have super hard time understanding how people can't see what a massive change that is.

I would imagine because the number of "situation specific but encounter winning" spells in 5e is vanishingly small. This isn't 3e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm still struggling to see how the Sorcerer being able to replace ONE spell known per long rest in an optional rule variant somehow destroys the versatility of the Wizard who can replace all their spells prepared per long rest.

The big issue as I see it in this respect is access.

A wizard has access to 6 spells to begin with from 36 (or so) first level spells. And in the end game has access to 44 spells (or more, but DM fiat as to how, when, and what you find--after you pay to add them to your spell book) of the roughly 300 spells.

A sorcerer (now) has access to 2 spells of the 24 (or so) first level spells. But, within 2 days, they can pick ANY of them. In the end game, they have 15 spells of the 185-ish spells they can cast. At no cost, and within roughly two weeks they can replace them ALL.

Wizards are limited by what they have in their spell book at any time. And GODS forbid they lose it, it gets stolen, or destroyed! Yikes, that will cost a lot of gold to replace and now their learned spells are just the ones they have prepared--the rest are lost.

Personally, I am not opposed to the idea, except how quickly it can be done. It should be (IMO) a downtime rule, maybe a workweek to swap out a spell or something simple. shrug