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.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.