D&D 5E Tasha's Optional Class Features - Using Them or Not?

[S'mon]

Have you ever seen anyone take the Protection fighting style? Ever?

Yes.

 

[Stormonu]

Interesting. I have never seen anyone take it or mention taking it in any campaign before. I'm assuming your character is more support oriented, am I right?

I smite wherever or whenever I can, so I wouldn't think overly so. But the ability to protect another member from harm has come in really handy at times. My paladin has recently gained a mount (an Allosaurus, actually), and I have used the protect ability to deflect attacks aimed at the mount quite often.

 

[ccooke]

Interesting. I have never seen anyone take it or mention taking it in any campaign before. I'm assuming your character is more support oriented, am I right?

So interestingly - my Oath of the Ancients paladin was originally created using the Protection style. It worked well for what he was doing, but when we redid things after Tasha's came out, I swapped it for the one that gets you cantrips. (He didn't really have any good ranged attacks).

Which reminds me of a thing - the channel divinity that gets you spell slots back is a really nice addition. Consider what the PHB paladin subclasses can do with channel divinity:

Oath of Devotion: 1 minute of adding your CHA mod to attack rolls, or a classic turn undead
Oath of Vengeance: Advantage to hit a single target for a minute, or a single-target turn anyone
Oath of the Ancients: A one-round miniature Entangle, or turn fey and fiends.

I can see the Devotion and Vengeance paladins using their channel divinity options almost every short rest. My ancients paladin uses it maybe once every ten sessions. Having another option that's always good means that it's no longer a wasted character feature most of the time. Given the power of their options, I expect that Devotion and Vengeance paladins are still going to be using their combat channel divinity options more often than not, but they get a little boost if not.

 

[Dausuul]

We're using the optional race rules (assign ability mods where you want). We haven't made a decision on the optional class features, mostly because no one has been interested enough yet to ask. I expect the DM will probably be fine with most of them.

 

[cbwjm]

I'll be letting most of the class options, some are redundant because I have better versions, so I won't bother with them such as swapping cantrips/fighting styles when you gain an ASI or subclass when you reach subclass level, I allow these swaps more or less whenever.

I prefer my own race options which lock in one ability modifier and then assigns two +1s to any other ability score (even combined to a +2) or they can both be swapped for a single feat.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I prefer my own race options which lock in one ability modifier and then assigns two +1s to any other ability score (even combined to a +2) or they can both be swapped for a single feat.

I use a similar system. You get one ASI for your Background, one for your Class/Subclass (I start games at level 3), and one for your Race/Subrace (maximum of +2 in any ability score).

This lets an Orc get a +2 to Intelligence if they want, but they'd have to use both their Class/Subclass and their Background to get this bonus, while a Gnome could only just choose a Class/Background and their Race to get the same bonus. This makes it so gnomes can get this bonus more easily than an Orc, but Orcs aren't inherently required to be stupid (like they were in the original version of Volo's).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I use a similar system. You get one ASI for your Background, one for your Class/Subclass (I start games at level 3), and one for your Race/Subrace (maximum of +2 in any ability score).

This lets an Orc get a +2 to Intelligence if they want, but they'd have to use both their Class/Subclass and their Background to get this bonus, while a Gnome could only just choose a Class/Background and their Race to get the same bonus. This makes it so gnomes can get this bonus more easily than an Orc, but Orcs aren't inherently required to be stupid (like they were in the original version of Volo's).

Do you assign particular ASIs to specific Backgrounds/Classes? Such as the Sage background gets +1 INT while a Ranger can choose +1 to DEX or WIS. Or do you allow any Ability to get the boost for Background/Class?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Do you assign particular ASIs to specific Backgrounds/Classes? Such as the Sage background gets +1 INT while a Ranger can choose +1 to DEX or WIS. Or do you allow any Ability to get the boost for Background/Class?

You get to choose from a set of ASIs (almost always just two) from both your Class and Background.

For backgrounds, a Sage could choose a +1 to INT or WIS, while a Criminal could choose a +1 to DEX or CHA.
For classes, a Ranger could choose a +1 to DEX/STR or WIS, while an Artificer could choose a +1 to INT or CON.

Make sense?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You get to choose from a set of ASIs (almost always just two) for both your Class and Background.

For backgrounds, a Sage could choose a +1 to INT or WIS, while a Criminal could choose a +1 to DEX or CHA.
For classes, a Ranger could choose a +1 to DEX/STR or WIS, while an Artificer could choose a +1 to INT or CON.

Make sense?

Makes sense. Cool concept with reasonable flexibility. Nice.
What happens with customized backgrounds (the PHB, pg 125, provides "sample backgrounds")? I would imagine you, as DM, would simply assign 2 possible ASI choices based on what the player has developed. Yes?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Makes sense. Cool concept with reasonable flexibility. Nice.

Thanks. I can't take credit for the original idea, but most of the system was developed by me.

What happens with customized backgrounds (the PHB, pg 125, provides "sample backgrounds")? I would imagine you, as DM, would simply assign 2 possible ASI choices based on what the player has developed. Yes?

Correct, the DM would assign them. I did the stats for every single official background from every single official 5e source, but homebrew ones would require the DM to rule on them.