• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Tasha's Group Patrons Preview

IGN has previewed the Group Patrons section of Tasha’s Guide to Everything.
8EDAA7B3-7A85-4E64-92DC-342E2D092AC8.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad



I'm not a huge fan of the Group Patron rules. This doesn't really add anything to my games. I have allowed my players to work for other people/factions since my very first campaign. IMO, this doesn't need printing as if it is a new and fancy rule. It just needs to be "Oh, hey! DMs! You can do this!"
 


I don't understand why you think that WoTC thinks that.

Seriously, I can't think of the last time they added something that was pitched as "And here's a brilliant new idea no one's had before!" and not "Here's something a lot of people are already doing, which means it's something they find useful for their games, so here's some rules to offer guidance and structure for all the people who aren't doing it and might find it a good addition."
 


Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
I don't understand why WotC is so convinced that, before now, no one ever considered that the PCs might work for someone else.

I suspect they're trying to give DMs more tools to get players to follow the plot railroad. But maybe I'm just cynical today.
In a typical D&D game, the party goes on an adventure . . . often to a dungeon . . . and might be hired by someone or receive a "quest" from some group or individual, but having a "group patron" is not a normal part of the game.

Of course, plenty of DM's have been doing this since the 70s I'm sure. 80s at the latest. But it isn't the standard. WotC doesn't create books solely for those experienced DM's, but also to people fairly new to the game, or who simply haven't gone down certain roads yet in their own games.

It's not unlike the rules for factions in the core books. It's not like DM's haven't been using factions in their games before 5th Edition rolled around, but having a rules framework to help build them was a useful addition to the game. Same with patrons.

I liked the group patron rules in the Eberron book, and I'm excited to see them again in Tasha's even though I'm sure they won't be super different. It gives me a framework to build my own patrons around that I like, even though it won't be the first time in my games my players have worked for "the man".
 


I'm interested to see the actual crunch on this. Our party kind of has a patron (when we aren't off on another plane), who is a Waterdeep noble whose family runs a magical academy, and who initially roped us in via hiring our bard to be their in house bard (mostly a pretense, as they were interested in investigating weird things about our party).

So I'm going to see if there is any crunch (or structured advice) that will be worth using for this aristicrat/academy patron setup. I figure it's even odds this part of the book will be useful to me
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Seriously, I can't think of the last time they added something that was pitched as "And here's a brilliant new idea no one's had before!" and not "Here's something a lot of people are already doing, which means it's something they find useful for their games, so here's some rules to offer guidance and structure for all the people who aren't doing it and might find it a good addition."
Exactly. Yes.
 

They're writing these books as if D&D was just released in the 70s, to a brand new demographic that's never experienced any game like this before.

That's been the pillar of 5e. WotC doesn't care as much about the old guard as they do the fresh recruits. Instead they have online shops to throw us the old bone of a previous edition book now and then to keep us happy.

So while it may seem like a typically obvious concept to many of us, it's not so much for those extremely new to D&D and, in particular, DMing.
 

I don't understand why WotC is so convinced that, before now, no one ever considered that the PCs might work for someone else.

I suspect they're trying to give DMs more tools to get players to follow the plot railroad. But maybe I'm just cynical today.
You're not alone in being cynical.

Maybe I'm just not the target audience, but I see nothing there that isn't blindingly obvious to me.
 

Wrathamon

Adventurer
You're not alone in being cynical.

Maybe I'm just not the target audience, but I see nothing there that isn't blindingly obvious to me.
Each of these also have crunch benefits that many DMs might find useful. It's not just a group might work for someone else, it's the whole package. And, it got a good response in the Eberron book so it's moving over to a general book.
 


That rule is not bad. But it was already in the Eberron book. Just an other reprint with a small twist to justify its presence in the book. Thia is hardly the worst they could have done.

This rule will be useful for the young or inexperienced DMs out there. I would have like something better though.

The Ravnica setting book about the guilds and the bonuses given for key points in reputation with your guild was way but way much better IMO. I would have liked to see it adapted to organisations such as the Harpers, the Zenth, the Lord's Alliance and the others.

But it has at least the merit to be something that anyone can use.
 

First, that Redcap art with her on the Throne is amazing




Next, the Eberron book offered quite a bit for these. Now, obviously this will be generic and therefore harder to due, but going off someone mentioning an Academy, here is a high level overview of the "Academy" entry in Eberron

1) They used Morgrave as a specific example, listing what it is, and some basic history, then listing some of its prominent allies and enemies.

2) They then listed various benefits the Patron could give a party, giving some guidelines on how much money they might spend on a party under normal circumstances, access they could gain, research notes, training ect.

3) They followed that up with a breakdown of various "roles" within such a group. So, if you work for an academy you might be a Field Researcher, A Financier, A Research Assistant, or Scholar, and some advice on the focus that such a character might have.

4) Next they gave example missions that an Academy backed team might go on.

5) Following that they have a chart for the "Scholarly Standing" of your group. Basically, what are some of the reputations you might have as members of the Academy.

6) Then they give us a list of potential contacts you might have within the organization.

7) Finally they gave us other Academies and brief overviews of them, if you didn't want Morgrave.


And, other than 1 and 7, I'd say most of that was generic enough to apply to any setting and any academy. Which I think is quite a bit of content when you look at it being spread over at least 8 patrons (and yes, those look like the same patrons in the Eberron Book, and they had the same type of info for every entry)
 



DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Everything in these types of books is obvious and already done by a select group of DMs (thus rendering that part of the book kind of useless or unnecessary to them). But I in no way begrudge other players using or enjoying the rules even if I don't need them.

Heck, I'm constantly looking at the threads where people have been thanking the deities for all the Variant Class abilities coming in Tasha's and wondering what the heck have y'all been doing these last 6 years? I "fixed" my Ranger back in 2014 and haven't cared about any of these UAs or what's in the new book for them whatsoever. But I'm in no way mad or upset that WotC is spending some their word count putting in options for the rest of you.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top