D&D 5E Tasha or xanathar's, choose one and why do you like it?

[Vael]

Oh, and as a fan of Eberron, I guess giving up Tasha's, I still do have access to the Artificer and Group Patron rules, lol.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Thinking about purchasing one of these books. If you had to pick one and leave the other, which would you choose? Why?

I threw in a poll, but I am more interested in your reasoning.

As a player or DM? As a player, X. As a DM, probably also X, but T has some great DM Tables that could be helpful. X also has good DM stuff - magic items, more spells, etc

 

[Ayeffkay]

Xanathar's, because at least most of the subclasses presented there could reasonably fit in the type of D&D game I want to play.

Tasha's subclasses were clearly designed by a 5th grade class and edited by a 3rd grade class, neither of which had ever played D&D.

As a DM, I would rather my players stick to the PHB, but I buy every splatbook and am happy to work with a player to bring in line the really poorly designed subclasses if they really want to play them, as long as they're thematically appropriate to my game.

 

[Stormonu]

Xanathar's. I have yet to find anything useful from Tasha's, and have instead banned most of its content from my game.

 

[DeviousQuail]

For me, Tasha's did two things that make it worthwhile even if I think Xan's is better overall. First, druid's that use their wildshape in new and fun ways (I like druids so the more the better). Second, the summon spells are way better than the conjure crap from the PHB. The summons may not be quite as versatile or powerful but they are so much easier to run and better suited for 5e's game play. As a player or DM I don't think I will ever use the conjure spells again.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Tasha's has too much power creep for my taste.

What I've found interesting is that although Tasha's can be used for power creep (although, in my opinion, not very much of it) from what I've experienced so far the actual result hasn't been incremental optimization but instead fewer vHumans. Admittedly my sample set isn't huge, but in general I'm seeing fewer vHumans and more non-humans, often with non-traditional race/class combinations.

EDIT: We haven't been using the full-on a la carte option, just floating ASIs.

 

[jayoungr]

Xanathar's is my favorite 5E supplement and the one I consider to be the essential first buy if you're expanding beyond the core books. Not only does it include some of my favorite subclasses (storm sorcerer, drunken master monk), but the "life path" tables have led to some of my most fleshed-out characters. It also has some great spells, including everyone's favorite cantrip, Toll the Dead. The "dungeon master's tools" section is really solid, too; I particularly like the chapter on traps.

By contrast, I've barely used Tasha's at all so far.

 

[Jer]

I like the complete re-write of the Ranger class in Xanthar's, but I also like a lot of Tasha's. Especially the summoning rules and some of the new sublcasses. I just had a first session as a player playing a Psi Warrior from Tasha's and it's quite fun! So I probably have to go with Tasha's.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I like the complete re-write of the Ranger class in Xanthar's, but I also like a lot of Tasha's. Especially the summoning rules and some of the new sublcasses. I just had a first session as a player playing a Psi Warrior from Tasha's and it's quite fun! So I probably have to go with Tasha's.

Wait what re-write of the Ranger? The only rewrite of the Ranger at all is in Tasha’s in the form of optional variant features, or in UA in the form of the Revised Ranger concept that never went anywhere (sadly).

 

[Jer]

Wait what re-write of the Ranger? The only rewrite of the Ranger at all is in Tasha’s in the form of optional variant features, or in UA in the form of the Revised Ranger concept that never went anywhere (sadly).

Oh wait - am I confusing Tasha's and Xanthar's with that? If so I guess I prefer Tasha's (I thought all of those optional variant features were in Xanthar's for some reason)