Tasha's Magical Items are ridiculously strong for casters.

[Deathtongue]

If it was like one or two items, I wouldn't even be making this post. But Tasha's CONSISTENTLY published a bunch of crazy-go-nuts magical items that will require several pages of nerfs to get under control. That's going way to far, too the point where it's the biggest power creep for casters in the edition -- even moreso than the Season 8 AL Magical Item changes. So, to put things in perspective: the best feature of a Robe of the Archmagi is the boost to save DCs and spell attack rolls. There are some other nice goodies, but this is the big one. It's Legendary for a good reason. If available pretty much displaces any magical item attunement slot available, and we're talking some major buttkicker magical Legendaries like the Staff of the Magi and Tome of the Stilled Tongue. It's worth changing your alignment for even.

In Tasha's: the various spellcaster attunement items give a bigger bonus to save DCs at a much better availability. Some of them, like the Bloodwell, have features that are superior to the other benefits of the Robe of the Archmagi. And of course there's nonsense like the bardic spellcasting instruments and the Spellshards, especially the Far Realm and Shadow Realm spellshards. What's up with this? If these items were legendary, like, whatever but Uncommon and Rare make them have a very good chance of showing in the games. I've never felt the need as a DM to nerf magical items, even face-wreckingly powerful ones like the Staff of Power and Cloak of Invisibility, but this is a little much. I don't feel that way now.

What's up with that? I know the game designers play their own game, as even if I disagree with their rulings people like Jeremy Crawford can talk about estoterica of their game; like the ONE situation where you can use Infernal Calling to control a Horned Devil. These changes make me think that the game designers thought that casters were consistently underpowered across the board and needed some help. Which is like... okay, I can kind of see that for T1, but T2+? No way.

[Unoriginal]

So, to put things in perspective: the best feature of a Robe of the Archmagi is the boost to save DCs and spell attack rolls.

Well it seems that WotC disagres with you on how powerful a mod to save DCs and spell attacks is. Even on this forum I've seen it argued more than once and by several people that casters didn't need to have high save DCs/attack bonus and that the caster's ASIs were better spend elsewhere.

[Deathtongue]

Well it seems that WotC disagres with you on how powerful a mod to save DCs and spell attacks is. Even on this forum I've seen it argued more than once and by several people that casters didn't need to have high save DCs/attack bonus and that the caster's ASIs were better spend elsewhere.They'll see the errors of their way in a few weeks then. +2 to save DCs as a Rare item is not something to sneeze at. That's the range in which monsters start getting locked out of making a save if they're targeted by an unlucky spell. Which is kind of inevitable for T4/late T3, but having it happen in T2 is too much IMO.

[Democratus]

Non-consumable magic items should all be crazy powerful.

They should all have a name and a history and be rare and special.

In most 5e games I've enjoyed, maybe 1 permanent magic item per character appeared throughout an entire campaign.

[cutlery]

Well it seems that WotC disagres with you on how powerful a mod to save DCs and spell attacks is. Even on this forum I've seen it argued more than once and by several people that casters didn't need to have high save DCs/attack bonus and that the caster's ASIs were better spend elsewhere.

Those people are generally quite wrong, though.

In a case where someone does invest in a high spell DC, these items can be quite strong.

[Deathtongue]

Non-consumable magic items should all be crazy powerful.

They should all have a name and a history and be rare and special.

In most 5e games I've enjoyed, maybe 1 permanent magic item per character appeared throughout an entire campaign.

That's not the assumption of 5E D&D though. According to Xanathar's p. 135 the time you start T3, the game expects the party to have between them 17 Uncommon Magical Items, 6 Rare Magical Items, and 1 Very Rare Magical Item, with an arbitrary split between 'major' and 'minor' magical items.

[Dork_Forge]

They'll see the errors of their way in a few weeks then. +2 to save DCs as a Rare item is not something to sneeze at. That's the range in which monsters start getting locked out of making a save if they're targeted by an unlucky spell. Which is kind of inevitable for T4/late T3, but having it happen in T2 is too much IMO.

I've not gotten to the magic item section yet, but +2 to spell attacks and DCs has been in the game for years via the Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper, both with additional benefits.

From what I heard so far though there is a disproportionate amount of Wizard items that I'm not exactly thrilled about...

[Deathtongue]

I've not gotten to the magic item section yet, but +2 to spell attacks and DCs has been in the game for years via the Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper, both with additional benefits.

From what I heard so far though there is a disproportionate amount of Wizard items that I'm not exactly thrilled about...For Rod of the Pact Keeper, I never felt it was a big deal for Warlocks because they just don't have the juice until T3 to be crushing the opposition with battlefield control spells even with frequent short rests. Wand of the War Mage never gave a bonus to save DCs.

[AttilatheYeon]

I've not gotten to the magic item section yet, but +2 to spell attacks and DCs has been in the game for years via the Wand of the War Mage and Rod of the Pact Keeper, both with additional benefits.

From what I heard so far though there is a disproportionate amount of Wizard items that I'm not exactly thrilled about...

RotPK yes. WotWM no. Just like a Staff of Power does not add to spell save DCs.

[Sigreid]

I've not heard anything to make me a fan of the book just yet, but with something like this I'd say don't nerf the items; just don't include them in your game. There's already lots of magic items in the game that will never see the light of day in a game I run.

[KorvinStarmast]

Non-consumable magic items should all be crazy powerful. They should all have a name and a history and be rare and special.

In most 5e games I've enjoyed, maybe 1 permanent magic item per character appeared throughout an entire campaign. This.
Make the rest consumables, or utility items like a drift globe or a bag of holding. And potins. And scrolls.

That's not the assumption of 5E D&D though. According to Xanathar's p. 135 the time you start T3, the game expects the party to have between them 17 Uncommon Magical Items, 6 Rare Magical Items, and 1 Very Rare Magical Item, with an arbitrary split between 'major' and 'minor' magical items. And at least half of those are expected to be consumables.
(By the way, I agree with your OP on the power creep thing)

[stoutstien]

Magic items, out side the artificer's infusion list, are just not worth considering in terms of balance. After that higher hit and DCs on spells are pretty bland.

[MoiMagnus]

That's not the assumption of 5E D&D though. According to Xanathar's p. 135 the time you start T3, the game expects the party to have between them 17 Uncommon Magical Items, 6 Rare Magical Items, and 1 Very Rare Magical Item, with an arbitrary split between 'major' and 'minor' magical items.

"Expect" might be a strong word, as the same book explicitly says latter the following:

Characters and monsters are build to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item always makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.
Immediately followed by a paragraph that says that there is exactly one exception: you still need to ensure enough of your PCs have ways to deal magical damages.

[Xervous]

So AL suffers more because GMs are little more than automatons running scripts? Doesn’t sound like much has changed.

[Bobthewizard]

My main issue with all of these new spell DC boosting items is that they can stack. Unlike the Rod of the Pact Keeper, the bonus isn't limited to spells of that class. A sorcerer, paladin, bard could stack 3 items and have +9 to their DCs.

Heck, with two separate items for bards, a straight bard could get +5.

[Spiritchaser]

My main issue with all of these new spell DC boosting items is that they can stack. Unlike the Rod of the Pact Keeper, the bonus isn't limited to spells of that class. A sorcerer, paladin, bard could stack 3 items and have +9 to their DCs.

Heck, with two separate items for bards, a straight bard could get +5.

So, I’m not an AL player, so take this in context but: It’s up to me as the DM to control this. I get to pick which cool items will exist and where, or if any exist at all. If I don’t want them to stackI don’t add more than one.

More options and cool ideas are better.

What I don’t particularly like is when the DM is presented with a disproportionate number of options for one class but... ah well.

Again, the above may not be relevant to AL league games, and +9 does seem absurd

[Amechra]

Well it seems that WotC disagres with you on how powerful a mod to save DCs and spell attacks is. Even on this forum I've seen it argued more than once and by several people that casters didn't need to have high save DCs/attack bonus and that the caster's ASIs were better spend elsewhere.

Wasn't it more like one guy? And that guy couldn't support his arguments with actual math?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Adventures Leagues league already has rules add new restrictions to the game. They can easy pass a rule to make them not stack or disallow them entirely.

It’s not WoTC job to Accommodate AL.

[Sigreid]

Wasn't it more like one guy? And that guy couldn't support his arguments with actual math?

2 things come up fairly common here. First, that you don't have to have a maxed casting stat, 18 is fine at max level. Second, there are fairly frequent discussions of how to be a successful caster if your casting stat just sucks. Both are possible/true, but there aren't many people who argue that it isn't better to have that extra +1 strength of your spells.

[CheddarChampion]

Most posters here seem to be on board that these items are quite strong (I am too).

I agree that you could just disallow them if your group is cool with that. Some groups consider everything official to be balanced so a DM might get some pushback if they explicitly disallow some things.

My main group is running a West Marches style game. Only one member has the book and he's already decided that he'll make a character using Tasha's options - without consulting the group (rotating DMs). The rest of us haven't even seen the cover in person and he's already decided for himself that it is going to be allowed. (This is coming from the same guy who bans sharpshooter and GWM when he DM's.) Maybe he'll pick something that's balanced. Maybe he'll try to get this item and the group will be split on allowing it or not. That'll lead to some strife.

Overall I don't like that these were added in: I think it will cause a divide between people who want them and people who don't want to let them have them. The one-shots I occasionally run will have to have an asterisk next to the "you start with your choice of a magic item of X rarity" now.

[Telwar]

Heh. Unless there's something somewhere about bonuses not stacking together, then this is hilarious.

Though it shouldn't be too bad, since magic item acquisition is usually in the DM'S hands. Just because you theoretically might get a +9 bonus
totalat high levels doesn't mean you will.

Of course, I'm sure there isn't a +1-3 hilt stone/bowstring to let martials stack their to hit/damage up with a magic weapon.

[MrCharlie]

Magic items, out side the artificer's infusion list, are just not worth considering in terms of balance. After that higher hit and DCs on spells are pretty bland.
This.

You think the magic items are too strong? Don't add them to your games. No one is forcing you to.

Unless new hardcovers include these items, you will probably never see them. Even if they do, you can quietly swap them out. And even if you don't want to do that, powerful players isn't a bad thing-and in general, a character with maxed spell save DCs has some other weakness to compensate.

(Of course, after playing several high level abjuration wizard and feeling like I was pretty much immortal on every one, this isn't always true).

Point being that magic items aren't part of game balance, they are part of the DMs goody toolbox. Candy isn't part of a balanced breakfast and neither are magic items.

[Deathtongue]

This.

You think the magic items are too strong? Don't add them to your games. No one is forcing you to.I don't DM every game and a lot of DMs I play with or DMs in general, including people in this very thread, don't think they're too strong. "Don't like, don't use" is not an acceptable solution to a systemic problem, especially in situations where you don't get to control if they're used or not. A DM drops a Shadowfell Shard into a fellow player's hand in early T2 (because Rare items generally don't break the game at this tier, even hard-hitters like Wand of Lightning Bolts), am I just supposed to suffer in silence or confront the DM/player about it being overpowered? Or would it be better if this was solved at the game designer level?


Overall I don't like that these were added in: I think it will cause a divide between people who want them and people who don't want to let them have them. The one-shots I occasionally run will have to have an asterisk next to the "you start with your choice of a magic item of X rarity" now.Exactly. Outsourcing obvious loot drama and equally obvious game balance problems to individual tables is not the way to go. It'd be better if something this overpowered was solved at the game design level, rather than sloughing off responsibility to individual tables.

[DarknessEternal]

am I just supposed to suffer in silence or confront the DM/player about it being overpowered? Or would it be better if this was solved at the game designer level?
Why are you playing games with people who aren't your friends or at least friendly with?

[Makorel]

Was I the only one who thought there would be specific magic items for non-spellcasting classes? I probably wouldn't mind all these new magic items if fighters/barbarians/monks/rogues got some of that love too.

[sithlordnergal]

, am I just supposed to suffer in silence or confront the DM/player about it being overpowered? Or would it be better if this was solved at the game designer level?

I mean...why would you even bother with complaining? As long as the DM is making sure there's a balanced amount of magical items, I.E. something of equivalent power for you and everyone else, what's the issue if someone else gets a cool item? Is your issue that the other player is suddenly stronger, thus making the party stronger over all? Seems like an odd thing to be annoyed at.

[sithlordnergal]

Was I the only one who thought there would be specific magic items for non-spellcasting classes? I probably wouldn't mind all these new magic items if fighters/barbarians/monks/rogues got some of that love too.

Non-Spell casting classes do need a lot more love, I'll drink to that.

[Kane0]

Slight sidetrack, do we know anything about magic tattoos in Tashas?

[Deathtongue]

Why are you playing games with people who aren't your friends or at least friendly with?
Because gaming requires compromising. If I don't like the balancing of the game but I like the other aspects (like story, characters, playing with a DM who finishes stories) then I can bite my tongue on game balance and not cause trouble at the table. That doesn't mean I have to like it and it certainly doesn't mean that I accept responsibility from the game designer for their game balancing decision.


I mean...why would you even bother with complaining? As long as the DM is making sure there's a balanced amount of magical items, I.E. something of equivalent power for you and everyone else, what's the issue if someone else gets a cool item? Is your issue that the other player is suddenly stronger, thus making the party stronger over all? Seems like an odd thing to be annoyed at.If a DM give a T2 Fighter/Barbarian a Belt of Fire Giant Strength because it was errata'd to be an uncommon item and thus they thought it was okay for game balance, I'd be annoyed at the game designers too. I couldn't even really blame my DM for that one, they're following the guidelines someone else set down.

[Dork_Forge]

Slight sidetrack, do we know anything about magic tattoos in Tashas?

Is there any in particular you're interested in?

The Eldritch Claw made it in, uncommon for +1 unarmed strikes and a super saiyan mode for 15ft reach and an extra d6 per attack (how that is just uncommon I have no idea).

[Aussiehams]

I don't DM every game and a lot of DMs I play with or DMs in general, including people in this very thread, don't think they're too strong. "Don't like, don't use" is not an acceptable solution to a systemic problem, especially in situations where you don't get to control if they're used or not. A DM drops a Shadowfell Shard into a fellow player's hand in early T2 (because Rare items generally don't break the game at this tier, even hard-hitters like Wand of Lightning Bolts), am I just supposed to suffer in silence or confront the DM/player about it being overpowered? Or would it be better if this was solved at the game designer level?

It's not a competition. Shouldn't you be happy for them and your party?

[MrCharlie]

I don't DM every game and a lot of DMs I play with or DMs in general, including people in this very thread, don't think they're too strong. "Don't like, don't use" is not an acceptable solution to a systemic problem, especially in situations where you don't get to control if they're used or not. A DM drops a Shadowfell Shard into a fellow player's hand in early T2 (because Rare items generally don't break the game at this tier, even hard-hitters like Wand of Lightning Bolts), am I just supposed to suffer in silence or confront the DM/player about it being overpowered? Or would it be better if this was solved at the game designer level?

Exactly. Outsourcing obvious loot drama and equally obvious game balance problems to individual tables is not the way to go. It'd be better if something this overpowered was solved at the game design level, rather than sloughing off responsibility to individual tables.
If a DM shows favoritism, you've always been screwed.

Coming at this as a player, and saying "This makes my fellow players too strong!" is almost the worst kind of complaint as well.

But more to the point, if a DM wanted to, they could always add these into the game. This has changed nothing, besides to give a DM a "stamp of approval", but there are incredibly strong magic items already added. There are incredibly strong magic items in the DMG. There are incredibly strong magic items in the DMG that are incorrectly rated, rarity wise. This, again, changes nothing. It just adds another set of items that are very, very strong.

In summary; I think your philosophy in general is wrong, and your philosophy specifically here is wrong. On every level you've stated in this post, in the general and specific.

[Kane0]

Is there any in particular you're interested in?

The Eldritch Claw made it in, uncommon for +1 unarmed strikes and a super saiyan mode for 15ft reach and an extra d6 per attack (how that is just uncommon I have no idea).

Primarily because of how they flaunted attunement, I didn’t like that.

[Dork_Forge]

Primarily because of how they flaunted attunement, I didn’t like that.

By flaunted in this context do you mean overused?

[Kane0]

By flaunted in this context do you mean overused?

IIRC in the UA version let you stack multiple magic tattoos onto the same attunement slot, which I wasn’t a fan of.

[Dork_Forge]

IIRC in the UA version let you stack multiple magic tattoos onto the same attunement slot, which I wasn’t a fan of.

Ohh, I reread it and there's nothing to indicate the published version use attunement any differently to any other item.

[Elysiume]

It's not a competition. Shouldn't you be happy for them and your party?It's not a competition but for some people, being overshadowed and/or feeling ineffectual by comparison is going to be a larger negative than the boost to party power is a positive. Different people take power disparities differently.

[MoiMagnus]

There are incredibly strong magic items in the DMG that are incorrectly rated, rarity wise.

Which is by itself, a failure from the designers. It's not like it's something difficult to fix with erratas... I understand that Magic Items being completely under the "DM approval is required" make unbalance on them less problematic than unbalance on the content of the PHB, but you're not helping beginner or occasional DMs by having incorrectly rated magical objects, refusing to fix those incorrect rating in latter printing, and continuing to add new objects incorrectly rated rarity-wise.

[Dark.Revenant]

Since when did magic item rarity matter one whit outside of organized play?

Design-wise, the only thing that rarity actually does (aside from some nonsensical pricing guidelines) is establish roughly when, in an adventurer's career, certain items are likely to show up. Legendary items are generally intended to be found in Tier 4, and Uncommon items are more of a Tier 2 thing.

Think of the rarities as the following:
Common: Abundant, purchasable
Uncommon: Late Tier 1, Tier 2
Rare: Tier 2, Tier 3
Very Rare: Tier 3, Early Tier 4
Legendary: Late Tier 3, Tier 4

Of course, it's still far from perfect, but at least the categorizations make more sense this way.

[Gtdead]

Naaa, nothing new here. I mean, having +DC items teaches the new DMs that DC is something that needs boosting the same way that +3 armors and shields teach us that stacking AC is ok. And then you get a character with impossible AC and DC that laughs against everything you throw against him.

[Democratus]

Since when did magic item rarity matter one whit outside of organized play?

There is an NPC in Saltmarsh who sells magic items, with the price based entirely on the rarity.

Quartermaster of Iuz, iirc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Was I the only one who thought there would be specific magic items for non-spellcasting classes? I probably wouldn't mind all these new magic items if fighters/barbarians/monks/rogues got some of that love too. Would have been nice.
DM Pro Tip: Swords as sentient items are a great magic item for a martial. (Or can be) That's already in the DMG.

Slight sidetrack, do we know anything about magic tattoos in Tashas? Yes, each takes an attunement slot.

There is an NPC in Saltmarsh who sells magic items, with the price based entirely on the rarity. Quartermaster of Iuz, iirc. She is an NPC under DM control, so her prices can vary, and certain items may be utterly unavailable, or you need to make a trade ... well, that's how I run it. :smallwink:
Also, if she doesn't like you, you'll get nothing and like it.

[Willie the Duck]

I mean...why would you even bother with complaining? As long as the DM is making sure there's a balanced amount of magical items, I.E. something of equivalent power for you and everyone else, what's the issue if someone else gets a cool item? Is your issue that the other player is suddenly stronger, thus making the party stronger over all? Seems like an odd thing to be annoyed at.

There is a line of thinking I find persuasive that increasing the power level, even in a balanced way, still has consequences. Certainly when I have played in higher power games (the Monty Haul campaign, or some attribute-determining system stronger than best3of4d6) and then the DM made the opposition strong to compensate, it just ended up in more character deaths/TPKs.


Was I the only one who thought there would be specific magic items for non-spellcasting classes? I probably wouldn't mind all these new magic items if fighters/barbarians/monks/rogues got some of that love too.
This has been an ongoing problem. Each edition, as it expanded, seems to give more and more options, with a heavy bent towards the casters. The existence of bracers of armor and the like being among the first examples.


Which is by itself, a failure from the designers. It's not like it's something difficult to fix with erratas.
It seems to me that the WotC philosophy of use of the errata (over all the editions they've lead) is to fix genuine errors (IIRC correctly in 3e the Duskblade initially got 10 3rd level spells at some point, and that was really supposed to be 1 3rd and 0 4th, but a tab was missing in the text or similar) or clarify. Going back and changing magic item rarity/level of a spell/CR of a monster based on a 'we changed our mind, this is too good/bad for that level' is outside the scope to which they give the errata system. I'll call them out for making an imperfectly balanced game, but not using the errata system to fix this seems to be (to me) in no way a failure.

[Sception]

I'm with those who fail to see the issue since magic items not on the artificer list aren't reliably available to player characters in the first place. Furthermore, the power of magic items already varies so wildly that it hardly matters. Yeah, it was bad design to not properly balance items, but it was a mistake made on day zero of 5e and there's not much point complaining about it now. That's a systemic problem, not something specific to or even meaningfully worsened by Tasha's specifically.

Frankly I have to feel that most of the DMs complaining about this weren't going to let their players have any new magic items regardless of how strong they are.

As for players complaining about fellow players getting nice things because it ruins interparty balance or whatever, do you equally complain if the DM gives you fewer or weaker weaker magic items than whatever you feel the default to be?

[Democratus]

She is an NPC under DM control, so her prices can vary, and certain items may be utterly unavailable, or you need to make a trade ... well, that's how I run it. :smallwink:
Also, if she doesn't like you, you'll get nothing and like it.

The quote I was addressing was a question of where outside of organized play does rarity "matter one whit?".

Having prices for items in a published module based on rarity is a solid answer to that question, I believe.

Even if a DM changes it - that is something the DM has to consciously account for. Which is still within the measure of "one whit". :smallsmile:

Besides..."Unless the DM rules otherwise" is kind of a non-statement, as this is always the case with every instance of every aspect of the game. :smallcool:

[JackPhoenix]

She is an NPC under DM control, so her prices can vary, and certain items may be utterly unavailable, or you need to make a trade ... well, that's how I run it. :smallwink:
Also, if she doesn't like you, you'll get nothing and like it.

She can explicitly get you anything except artifacts if you don't mind waiting, but she doesn't sell the items, she trades them for Apparatus of Kwalish.

[Democratus]

She can explicitly get you anything except artifacts if you don't mind waiting, but she doesn't sell the items, she trades them for Apparatus of Kwalish.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh, p. 19:
"If the characters want a specific item, Xendros can fulfill a request for an item from Table F or Table G with 1d4 weeks of work. Her asking price is based on the item's rarity, as given in the table below."

Then there is a list of prices ranging from 75gp for Common items to 50,000gp for Legendary items. :smallsmile:

[KorvinStarmast]

Ghosts of Saltmarsh, p. 19:
"If the characters want a specific item, Xendros can fulfill a request for an item from Table F or Table G with 1d4 weeks of work. Her asking price is based on the item's rarity, as given in the table below."

Then there is a list of prices ranging from 75gp for Common items to 50,000gp for Legendary items. :smallsmile: Correct, which I happily ignore. For AL play, though, not a bad way to try and get an item you are hoping for ...

Having prices for items in a published module based on rarity is a solid answer to that question, I believe. Fair point, in terms of offering any DM something to work with.

[Sception]

Ghosts of Saltmarsh, p. 19:
"If the characters want a specific item, Xendros can fulfill a request for an item from Table F or Table G with 1d4 weeks of work. Her asking price is based on the item's rarity, as given in the table below."

Then there is a list of prices ranging from 75gp for Common items to 50,000gp for Legendary items. :smallsmile:

Are any of the new items in Tasha's Cauldron on Table F or Table G?

[JackPhoenix]

Ghosts of Saltmarsh, p. 19:
"If the characters want a specific item, Xendros can fulfill a request for an item from Table F or Table G with 1d4 weeks of work. Her asking price is based on the item's rarity, as given in the table below."

Then there is a list of prices ranging from 75gp for Common items to 50,000gp for Legendary items. :smallsmile:

Ah, I stopped at the first mention at page 14, and haven't read further.

[Dark.Revenant]

There is an NPC in Saltmarsh who sells magic items, with the price based entirely on the rarity.

Quartermaster of Iuz, iirc.

Yikes. Though I suppose even for that NPC, these new items aren't eligible.

[Snowbluff]

Adventures Leagues league already has rules add new restrictions to the game. They can easy pass a rule to make them not stack or disallow them entirely.

It’s not WoTC job to Accommodate AL.

Eh. WotC writes the AL rules too. It's entirely up to them how this is handled. The people "in charge of" AL don't really do anything more than be communications managers and event organizers.

[Bilbron]

Wasn't it more like one guy? And that guy couldn't support his arguments with actual math?

Taking this question seriously, I look at my spell list and realize that 2/4 cantrips call for a save (Mind Sliver and Sapping Sting), and only 2/13 spells call for a save (Sleet Storm and Slow, which I don't lead with). I do most of my damage with Summons, so honestly having a bad save DC wouldn't be debilitating for my playstyle. Having fewer preps available would suck though.

If I didn't already have Int 20, this would be food for thought.

[Snownine]

I think the best option for the items that increase spell DC is to raise their rarity to the level you feel appropriate for their power. Perhaps, also, not allowing their effects to stack.

Sorry if this is not the place to ask this but I felt like it would be dumb to make a whole new thread for it. Did monks get any magic items? What about other martials? I won't have a copy until Christmas so I can't look for myself.

[Telwar]

Sorry if this is not the place to ask this but I felt like it would be dumb to make a whole new thread for it. Did monks get any magic items? What about other martials? I won't have a copy until Christmas so I can't look for myself.

TBH, the thread title kinda answers the question. :smallsmile:

But no, there are no monk-specific magic items in Tasha's, nor items for other non-caster classes to improve their class-based save DCs. The Eldritch Claw tattoo did make it in, which at least gives you a +1 to hit and damage with unarmed strikes (and a once/day +d6 and reach), but that's not monk-specific, so you'll have to fight the druid and barbarian and the (sigh) unarmed fighter for it.

[Zalabim]

There really is not a single item to interact with non-spellcaster class abilities. Nothing that interacts with Rage, Sneak Attack, Action Surge, Ki, Cunning Action, or anything similar I might've missed.


That's not the assumption of 5E D&D though. According to Xanathar's p. 135 the time you start T3, the game expects the party to have between them 17 Uncommon Magical Items, 6 Rare Magical Items, and 1 Very Rare Magical Item, with an arbitrary split between 'major' and 'minor' magical items.
The split is arbitrary, but it is listed, and it would have such a party with 0 very rare major magical items. Minor magical items are all either consumable or very distinctly utility benefits. None of them are permanent combat enhancers.

My main issue with all of these new spell DC boosting items is that they can stack. Unlike the Rod of the Pact Keeper, the bonus isn't limited to spells of that class. A sorcerer, paladin, bard could stack 3 items and have +9 to their DCs.

Heck, with two separate items for bards, a straight bard could get +5.

The only one that uses generic language seems to be the holy symbol for clerics and paladins. As the only one out of six (or seven including the original Rod), that might just be an error.

[Makorel]

TBH, the thread title kinda answers the question. :smallsmile:

But no, there are no monk-specific magic items in Tasha's, nor items for other non-caster classes to improve their class-based save DCs. The Eldritch Claw tattoo did make it in, which at least gives you a +1 to hit and damage with unarmed strikes (and a once/day +d6 and reach), but that's not monk-specific, so you'll have to fight the druid and barbarian and the (sigh) unarmed fighter for it.

I'd like to see that fight actually.

[Snownine]

TBH, the thread title kinda answers the question. :smallsmile:

But no, there are no monk-specific magic items in Tasha's, nor items for other non-caster classes to improve their class-based save DCs. The Eldritch Claw tattoo did make it in, which at least gives you a +1 to hit and damage with unarmed strikes (and a once/day +d6 and reach), but that's not monk-specific, so you'll have to fight the druid and barbarian and the (sigh) unarmed fighter for it.

Dang, that's sucks. From your comment I take it the unarmed fighting style got through as well. Man, Tasha's really sounds like a big bummer all around from what I have heard.

[Snowbluff]

If tomorrow, I told the players that a fighter will get a +3 greatsword, or a ranger will get a +3 longbow, nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But if I say one little ol' sorcerer will get a +1 DC item, well then everyone loses their minds!

[Willie the Duck]

If tomorrow, I told the players that a fighter will get a +3 greatsword, or a ranger will get a +3 longbow, nobody panics. Because it's all part of the plan. But if I say one little ol' sorcerer will get a +1 DC item, well then everyone loses their minds!

At your table? Because here I think the in-thread response has been 51%+ of an 'eh' reaction.