Going through Tasha's step by step

[jaappleton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UjtunRzriQ&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=NerdImmersion

Youtuber Nerd Immersion got an early copy of the book, and was courteous enough to put time stamps as he reads through it.

Note: I'm not him, don't personally know him, but this is one of the better looks at a physical copy of the book that I've seen.

I'm watching it now, and my favorite part so far is the Paladin and Cleric magic items. (Again, you can find the time stamps in the description of the video)

There's an amulet for Paladins and Clerics, with scaling rarity, that grand +1 to Spell Attacks and Spell DC, AND gives an additional use of Channel Divinity once per day.

[MaxWilson]

Those parley rules are as disappointing as I have come to expect from WotC.

[jaappleton]

Those parley rules are as disappointing as I have come to expect from WotC.

Yeah, pretty disappointing. Not going to argue that one bit.

What's VERY interesting is that he doesn't corroborate the notion of racial feat restrictions having been removed. There were tons of reports on that, I hadn't seen definitive proof (but every other claim that I read has been true), but Nerd Immersion touches on it and says he doesn't see it in the book.

[Unoriginal]

Those parley rules are as disappointing as I have come to expect from WotC.


Yeah, pretty disappointing. Not going to argue that one bit.




Haven't seen the video yet (thanks for the link, jaappleton), but I never got why they decided to write specific rules for parley. That seems already covered by the PHB and DMG parts on interactions with the NPCs.

My best guess is that it was a Frequently Asked Question for some reason so they decided to include it in the book, same as the "what check to tie a rope?" part of the Xanathar's.


EDIT: having now watched this part of the video, I can say I'm not really disappointed for the most part. It's a quick rule about how to resolve a "how do I get the hostile being to talk with us?" situation and some inspiration tables for the DM, it shouldn't be more complex than that (although they could have made bigger tables for the inspiration).

However, they *really* should have called this something else than Parley. As in, parley is the act of negotiating, it's not "how you get someone to talk to you."

Calm Hostile Monsters or something like that would have been much more intuitive about what the rule was about.


EDIT 2: Whoa, Path of the Beast Barbarian is a beast.

[MaxWilson]

Haven't seen the video yet (thanks for the link, jaappleton), but I never got why they decided to write specific rules for parley. That seems already covered by the PHB and DMG parts on interactions with the NPCs.

That's the problem--they have complicated rules which do nothing but give you advantage on your check on the DMG rules. Is anybody at all going to allow an aberration to graft strange appendages onto their body instead of just casting Enhance Ability (Charisma)? The rules are bad in the same way that Keen Sense for monsters is bad: they're built on top of something which itself has no foundation (ability checks in a vacuum).

There are some ideas there that aren't horrible ("find out what the monster wants"), some ideas that are pretty bad (tying difficulty of ascertaining its desires to its CR), and some ideas that are downright horrible (your reward for jumping through all these hoops is advantage on the Charisma check).

I can imagine flipping the system around and making it "if you can offer the monster something that it wants [see table for some ideas] and succeed on a Charisma check, you can shift it from hostile to neutral or from neutral to friendly." But in its current form it's a waste of space.

[Unoriginal]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you on the rest of your post, MaxWilson, but for this part:


Is anybody at all going to allow an aberration to graft strange appendages onto their body instead of just casting Enhance Ability (Charisma)?

I've known and seen way too many players who would jump on the chance. Though I've known/seen as many who would decide to just murder the creature if asked.

[MaxWilson]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you on the rest of your post, MaxWilson, but for this part:

I've known and seen way too many players who would jump on the chance. Though I've known/seen as many who would decide to just murder the creature if asked.

Well, you might be right. I have certainly known players be eager to experiment with strange machines that can result in you gaining body mods including extra appendages--but I think they were eager for the potential benefits. I expect that they would react differently if the grafting were framed as a benefit they're granting to someone else in order to curry favor with it ("you realize that the daelkyr would like to graft a tentacle made from a dozen human ears onto your chin, will you allow the operation?"). In my experience framing affects player psychology, and letting someone do something to you is viewed as a cost, not an opportunity--but perhaps you're right and some players would be be like, "ear tentacle beard? Sure, sign me up!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not necessarily disagreeing with you on the rest of your post, MaxWilson, but for this part:



I've known and seen way too many players who would jump on the chance. Though I've known/seen as many who would decide to just murder the creature if asked.

Heck, I've had one who would actively seek that out. The more tentacles the better. It was an odd campaign.

[Bilbron]

Heck, I've had one who would actively seek that out. The more tentacles the better. It was an odd campaign.

There are tons of players like this out there, lol. Usually they like Chaotic Neutral, so if you have one in the party, you better manage him, lol.

[werescythe]

It is a shame that the Beast Barbarian's natural weapons are considered simple weapons. Oh well.

[MaxWilson]

Heck, I've had one who would actively seek that out. The more tentacles the better. It was an odd campaign.

I think there's a difference in psychology between a player actively seeking something out, vs. acquiescing when something else seeks him out to impose the thing on him. The latter smells more like a trap and (in my experience) provokes resistance. But perhaps my experience is unusual and/or I'm wrong.

[Unoriginal]

I think there's a difference in psychology between a player actively seeking something out, vs. acquiescing when something else seeks him out to impose the thing on him. The latter smells more like a trap and (in my experience) provokes resistance. But perhaps my experience is unusual and/or I'm wrong.

The player/PC getting resistant in such circumstances definitively happens, and probably happens more often than not, but at the same time some players can't agree fast enough to that kind of stuff just for the heck of it.

Same kind of players who drink malfunctioning potions knowing they're malfunctioning.

[MaxWilson]

The player/PC getting resistant in such circumstances definitively happens, and probably happens more often than not, but at the same time some players can't agree fast enough to that kind of stuff just for the heck of it.

Same kind of players who drink malfunctioning potions knowing they're malfunctioning.

Fair enough.

Real Men/Real Roleplayers/Real Loonies/Real Munchkins.

[DracoKnight]

It is a shame that the Beast Barbarian's natural weapons are considered simple weapons. Oh well.

Why is that?

[werescythe]

Why is that?

Because there are some races that have natural weapons that also function as unarmed strikes, which would make the Tavern Brawler feat SUPER fun for Beast Barb. Sadly not. However I will still find it fun to experiment with this subclass.