How badly will WoTC ignore their own guidance in the next supplement?

[KorvinStarmast]

When Tasha's came out, a lot of us looked at the power creep/spell inflation for the two sorcerous origins with dismay since it departed from a core aspect of the sorcerer class: limited spell selection. Back in 2016, in a post on the WoTC web site, the devs went into some detail on how to modify a class (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes), form a conceptual PoV, and what not to mess with.


Any time we expand the known spells of the sorcerer, we run the risk of overshadowing the other sorcerous origins, since the limitation on the number of spells the sorcerer knows has a big impact on how the class plays.

In Xanathar's they didn't up the spell count, but they did provide some new features and expand (Divine Soul) access to other spell lists. In SCAG they didn't depart from that base guidance.

In Tasha's they threw their own book away.

Their other power creep move was in how they amped up the power of Spell Attack/Spell Save DC items as compared to rarity. (Moon Sickle for Druid being but one example).

While all of us have seen, in each edition, power creep manifest itself in a number of ways, it seems to have gotten out of hand with Tasha's.

Have they reached the point of no Return?
And, as I suspect is happening as a root cause, has MtG product line compatibility infested their core model to the detriment of attempts at balance?

My son plays both MTG and Hearthstone (I only play the latter) and we discuss power creep in that form of game with some frequency. Collectible card games struggle with power creep since 'shiny new card sells for money' is a powerful incentive for making that next card pack "just a little better so that everyone will want to buy one". Is there no way to stop this mind set from further penetrating 5e, or is this inevitible, like death and taxes? :smallfrown:

My other pet peeve, race based feats, violates their own guidline also.

A feat is a package that covers all the bases, allowing it to benefit any character. (This from an early UA that had example feats, how they were developed, and what made each better or worse from a design pespective. Mearls wrote most of that one)

[Amnestic]

While all of us have seen, in each edition, power creep manifest itself in a number of ways,

[...]

Is there no way to stop this mind set from further penetrating 5e, or is this inevitible, like death and taxes? :smallfrown:

Answered your own question there really. Power creep is inevitable. Sometimes it's large, sometimes it's small. Sometimes it's backwards and not at all (Soulknife). They missed an opportunity to add bloodline spells to all the old bloodlines for sure, a shame.

I think you're overblowing it as an issue new to D&D/5e though, and it's not like Xanathar's and SCAG don't have their own power outliers either.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think you're overblowing it as an issue new to D&D/5e though, and it's not like Xanathar's and SCAG don't have their own power outliers either. As a DM, I do not allow hex blades, and 'bounded accuracy' was supposed to be a tool that kept power within a certain box, mostly, which is something previus editions didn't have (though 4e I think approached it, given how much effort was put into balancing core roles and classes in that edition).

[Unoriginal]

KorvinStarmast, I mean no offense to you, but is the goal of the thread just to get angry at what WotC *might* do in the future?

I'm not saying that WotC doesn't do annoying things, but I don't think it's good for anyone to make a thread in order to brainstorm all the ways the game designers will maybe do badly.

If you're convinced they will mess up and/or fail to keep their promises, that's fair, but a relationship where one side is convinced the other will do wrong by them is not a relationship worth maintaining.

If you want to talk about all the ways WotC did already fail to follow their own guidelines, then that's fair too, but then why frame it as "let's talk about future problems we know nothing about"?

[Imbalance]

I can't cast any stones. I ignore my own guidance all the time.

[KorvinStarmast]

KorvinStarmast, I mean no offense to you, but is the goal of the thread just to get angry at what WotC *might* do in the future?
Not really; it's marked "speculation" and is basically a meditation on a trend that I am seeing of quality control starting to slip as the published books come out. (and yeah, there's a little bit of a rant in there). And I think that the "you got MtG in my D&D" problem will get worse, not better, and that's probably what has me most disappointed.

(On the other hand, we have had a productive discussion in another thread or two about rebuilding the magic system using the five color model from MtG and dispensing with 'schools' ... but I think that's for another edition, longer out in the future. That could go very well, or, it could be a complete mess).

So it's kind of a prediction thing, based on what I perceive as a behavioral trend of an increase in sloppy work.

And speculation ~ prediction is a thing we now and again do as a discussion thing. :smallsmile:

[ZRN]

When Tasha's came out, a lot of us looked at the power creep/spell inflation for the two sorcerous origins with dismay

Hmm, really? Aberrant Mind was the most popular UA subclass ever by a big margin, IIRC.

I think in this case, "ignoring their own guidance" was a clear sign of growth: they tried other stuff to make sorcerer subclasses work, and it turned out that adding more spells known instead was actually quite popular.

Overall I'd say they did a decent job of keeping "power creep" in check, aside from a very few feats (Elven Accuracy) and subclasses (hexblade). We're almost 7 years into 5e and you can build at least one character of any PHB class using PHB-only options that is comfortably in the same power range as an optimized character using all the supplements.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmm, really? Aberrant Mind was the most popular UA subclass ever by a big margin, IIRC.
Here is where I see the problem, though.
They didn't back fit the other origins with a list of bonus spells, just as the, when Xanathar Rangers came out, did not back fit the PHB rangers wit domain spells (always prepared). From where I sit, that creates a design dissonance/inconsistency that was not necessary; not that hard to include that thematic balancing approach when introducing a new archetype so that the subclasses are designed from the same basic template.

[MoiMagnus]

My son plays both MTG and Hearthstone (I only play the latter) and we discuss power creep in that form of game with some frequency. Collectible card games struggle with power creep since 'shiny new card sells for money' is a powerful incentive for making that next card pack "just a little better so that everyone will want to buy one".

I don't believe this commercial mindset can fully apply to RPGs. Most peoples that play D&D don't spend any money on it. What matters to WotC is to maintain some "hype" and "interest" in D&D, to fight "apathy". What they want is to maintain and increase the player base, and for that they need to compensate the fact that players naturally get bored out of an ageing RPG and eventually change to a newer shinier game.

As such new content usually needs to be:
(1) Comparable in power to the strongest of what previously exists (excluding builds that are so weird that they are not part of the gameplay of the average player)
(2) Less "annoying" to use (so cancelling some of the part of the rule set that frustrates players).

[RogueJK]

In Xanathar's they didn't up the spell count, but they did provide some new features and expand (Divine Soul) access to other spell lists.

The Divine Soul and Shadow Sorcerers in Xanathar's are what started the move in the direction, if you want to think of it that way. They were the first Sorcerer subclasses to gain additional spells known as subclass features.

Divine Soul got a free additional spell known at 1st level, thanks to Divine Magic. Granted, it was only one, but that's one more than any PHB Sorcerer (or a Storm Sorcerer) could know. Plus it could be retrained for any other Cleric spell as you progressed, similar to how you can retrain the Aberrant/Clockwork's additional spells with some limitations.

And then Shadow Sorcerer got Darkness for free at 3rd level. This one couldn't be retrained, but it was still one more spell than the other Sorcerers could know.

So even by Xanathar's they were bending that "rule" for Sorcerer subclasses, before fully breaking it with the Aberrant/Clockwork's whole slew of additional spells known.

[KorvinStarmast]

As such new content usually needs to be:
(1) Comparable in power to the strongest of what previously exists (excluding builds that are so weird that they are not part of the gameplay of the average player)
(2) Less "annoying" to use (so cancelling some of the part of the rule set that frustrates players). New Adventures and settings would seem to hold some promise, wouldn't they? But good point on "the shine eventually wears off" ... short attention span customer base is an issue, to be sure.

The Divine Soul and Shadow Sorcerers in Xanathar's are what started the move in the direction, if you want to think of it that way. {snip} So even by Xanathar's they were bending that rule for Sorcerers, before fully breaking it with the Aberrant/Clockwork's whole slew of additional spells known. Hmm, interesting point, but neither of them got the boost to AC or HP, so if we plugged that into the detect balance calc, was it still power creep? Probably.

[ZRN]

Here is where I see the problem, though.
They didn't back fit the other origins with a list of bonus spells, just as the, when Xanathar Rangers came out, did not back fit the PHB rangers wit domain spells (always prepared). From where I sit, that creates a design dissonance/inconsistency that was not necessary; not that hard to include that thematic balancing approach when introducing a new archetype so that the subclasses are designed from the same basic template.

Yeah, they should've added bloodline spells (or just extra spells known) to the older sorcerer subclasses as well. We can take a guess why they didn't (maybe they didn't want to spend the time to playtest a bunch of old content to make sure e.g. a storm sorcerer with extra spells is balanced?) but there it is.

Honestly, though, this would seem to indicate that the big failing was not "ignoring their own guidance" earlier; they could have made storm and shadow sorcerers a lot more interesting if they'd done so.

[MoiMagnus]

New Adventures and settings would seem to hold some promise, wouldn't they?

I cannot really talk about that, as I've yet to encounter IRL a D&D GM that use them.
And while I probably live in some sort of bubble, I'm sure there is a lot of other bubbles of peoples that only care about "what are the new rules and player options that are published?" like mine also exists.

A better answer is the homebrew content by third-party. But here the problem is more that there is too much on the internet available, too much to choose from, and too many interactions that might give strong imbalances.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Something to understand a little bit about the power creep isn't that they are intentionally making older classes less relevant on purpose.

What's actually happening is that the team is getting better at design and such.

Initially, using the Sorcerer, the idea of adding extra spells based on subclass may have been discarded. But after several years they most likely look back at that decision with befuddlement and ask why did they make that initial decision. Now they've realized that it was a dumb decision and have moved forward and designed better classes and subclass. Just by having more experience.

-------

What's super interesting in a historical example is watching Paizo iterate through all of 1st edition of pathfinder. I still hold that the "Advanced Class Guide" is peak Pathfinder in terms of making new and interesting classes with some simple mechanics (Slayer) and more advanced mechanics (Investigator or Arcanist). The brawler is by design a more all encompassing class than the fighter. It has more skills, better adaptability and more interesting design. It's not that they looked at the fighter and said, "Let's make this class obsolete." It's just they got better at design and discarded previous old ideology on what is appropriate for classes.

--------

5e is going the same route. I know that people don't much care for the new Tasha's Racial Abilities. The new sub-classes are more powerful. Some of the Feats are more interesting and they are playing with other types of rewards and structures for gaming. But all this is them looking at old design idea's and discarding them as they have learned from when they began years ago. This new improvements and efficiency are natural if you want a game to continue to grow.

Better that they do this, and emphasize the rules in DMG that talk about altering classes or abilities of other classes to bring them more in-line. Further, the line isn't that different, comparing the Sorcerer subclasses for example, everyone except the Wild Mage won't be too far off from each other in actual play. Because otherwise the game will get left behind in the game design theory as time moves on.

[Catullus64]

The six-odd years that this edition has been around has been enough for the designers to notice some of the bigger flaws in the design of the base game, Ranger and Sorcerer classes in particular. They probably realize that they were too restrictive in the Sorcerer's spell allocation, and Aberrant Mind, to me, represents about where the Sorcerer probably should have been all along. Same thing with Primal Companion vs. the base game's Beast Companion. So why don't they revise the older subclasses and features to bring them in line with the new ones?

Maybe it has something to do with ideas of how customers interact with the game products. I can imagine a new player of the game, who drops 50-150 USD on the core game books, being a little stung if they discover that they now need to buy an additional supplement if they want to play several of the classes as they always should have been. The Core Game should feel like a complete experience in itself, and the messaging of revising core content is that it isn't really. I can understand why WoTC might not want their design to contain that tacit admission.

Of course, you could always reprint the PHB with these changes, but that creates a whole new host of problems, and probably wouldn't actually generate enough new sales to be worth the cost. I suspect that the people who care about the finer points of class balance and power creep in an RPG (i.e. most of the people on forums like this) actually make up a fairly narrow slice of the market.

[Amnestic]

Would be nice if they released some official sorc subclass spell lists online as a free supplement or whatever (don't need to worry about page count on a PDF!) but there are plenty of fan versions at least.

[Sception]

Here is where I see the problem, though.
They didn't back fit the other origins with a list of bonus spells.

This is the problem, and it comes from a bit of WotC guidance/design philosophy that I wish they would change.

They don't errata existing content to fix it. At least, not when it's 'too weak' or 'not fun' - stuff judged to be too strong gets nerfs, but never the opposite. They can decide aspects of the PHB ranger were weak or unsatisfying, but they won't go back and fix the ranger or its existing subclasses, instead they'll just start printing more powerful and extravagant subclasses going forward. They can decide that the sorcerer's spells known are /too/ restricted, actually, but they won't go back and fix the sorcerer or its existing subclasses, instead they'll just start printing sorcerer subclasses with a bunch of extra spells known going forward. They can decide that the warlock blade boon is weak and awkward and not very functional for the narrative concept and gameplay experience it promises, but they won't go back and fix the warlock or even just the blade boon itself, instead they'll just put out a new warlock subclass that comes with a patch to the blade boon stapled on extra, immediately making it the strongest and most front loaded warlock subclass since it has a better version of a level 3 feature at level 1 on top of being a whole complete patron apart from that.

Design principles change. Stuff that seemed balanced in development are inevitably going to start showing flaws when exposed to years of play by the public. Ideas that seemed good to designers initially are sometimes going to look like obvious mistakes a few years down the road. I happen to agree with the idea that core rangers needed some sprucing up, that the aggressively limited warlock spells known crossed the line from characterful to frustrating and that subclass spell lists are an effective and engaging correction. I agree that the bladelock didn't really click as a not-even-subclass of the very not melee warlock baseclass as originally printed & needed some touching up. Frankly, I think the monk class could still use some of that attention.

I just wish they were willing to fix the printed stuff with errata rather than publishing patches in the form of new content that eclipses rather than corrects the old. I get that they don't want players to be confused by multiple versions of the same content floating around the ecosystem, but the current practice is, imo, significantly worse.

[Willie the Duck]

When Tasha's came out, a lot of us looked at the power creep/spell inflation for the two sorcerous origins with dismay since it departed from a core aspect of the sorcerer class: limited spell selection. Back in 2016, in a post on the WoTC web site, the devs went into some detail on how to modify a class (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes), form a conceptual PoV, and what not to mess with.
In Xanathar's they didn't up the spell count, but they did provide some new features and expand (Divine Soul) access to other spell lists. In SCAG they didn't depart from that base guidance.
In Tasha's they threw their own book away.
...
My other pet peeve, race based feats, violates their own guidline also.
(This from an early UA that had example feats, how they were developed, and what made each better or worse from a design pespective. Mearls wrote most of that one)

So here we have two examples of individual Unearthed Arcana articles which are, purportedly, sneak peaks behind the curtain about how, formulaically, the designers were going to set about creating new game content. However, we also know* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz_lMt-nLw) that there isn't really a consistent design philosophy to 5e except 'whatever works and makes people happy(-ish).' I don't necessarily disagree with any given point (about Tasha power creep or racial feats being a bad idea), but I'm not really sure that there's a guiding principle which is being violated here. I think you might be placing more importance upon some early UA article than ever was intended.
*or this could be another single data point extrapolated to have more meaning than they originally intended


This is the problem, and it comes from a bit of WotC guidance/design philosophy that I wish they would change.
They don't errata existing content to fix it. At least, not when it's 'too weak' or 'not fun' - stuff judged to be too strong gets nerfs, but never the opposite.

Seems to be the case. I get the impression that they think that the worst of the old stuff (wild magic sorcerer, berserker, etc.) is simply ignored by most everyone, and then tries (unsuccessfully, at times) to tack a course through the middle of the power of the existing material (along with the occasional deliberate upgrade, such as with rangers, sorcerers, and martial warlocks).

[KorvinStarmast]

Great post Thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
Of course, you could always reprint the PHB with these changes, but that creates a whole new host of problems, and probably wouldn't actually generate enough new sales to be worth the cost. I suspect that the people who care about the finer points of class balance and power creep in an RPG (i.e. most of the people on forums like this) actually make up a fairly narrow slice of the market. Another good answer, thanks. :smallsmile:

So here we have two examples of individual Unearthed Arcana articles which are, purportedly, sneak peaks behind the curtain about how, formulaically, the designers were going to set about creating new game content. However, we also know* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz_lMt-nLw) that there isn't really a consistent design philosophy to 5e except 'whatever works and makes people happy(-ish).'
Fair enough.

[Catullus64]

On a related topic, I've just noticed that the Aberrant Mind breaks what I assumed was another design principle. Notably, in its expanded spells, it includes Mind Sliver and Summon Aberration, both spells first printed in Tasha's. Before this point, I'm pretty sure there was an unspoken rule of "subclass spells will only draw from the Player's Handbook."

This, at least, is a design principle I'm glad they're breaking with. It makes some degree of sense to reduce inter-dependence between expansions, but it hardly makes sense to exclude spells that are printed in the same book as the subclass. I just wish they had done this sooner, so my Conquest Paladin could use Cause Fear already.

[RogueJK]

my Conquest Paladin could use Cause Fear already.

OT, and it's a little clunky of a workaround, but you could now access it by taking the Shadow Touched feat. Or just ask your DM if you can add it, possible even swapping out Command for it in your Oath Spell list.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

Something to understand a little bit about the power creep isn't that they are intentionally making older classes less relevant on purpose.

What's actually happening is that the team is getting better at design and such.

. . .

5e is going the same route. I know that people don't much care for the new Tasha's Racial Abilities. The new sub-classes are more powerful. Some of the Feats are more interesting and they are playing with other types of rewards and structures for gaming. But all this is them looking at old design idea's and discarding them as they have learned from when they began years ago. This new improvements and efficiency are natural if you want a game to continue to grow.

Better that they do this, and emphasize the rules in DMG that talk about altering classes or abilities of other classes to bring them more in-line. Further, the line isn't that different, comparing the Sorcerer subclasses for example, everyone except the Wild Mage won't be too far off from each other in actual play. Because otherwise the game will get left behind in the game design theory as time moves on.

I agree to an extent. I do think the design team have evolved in some way, whether that's through greater familiarity with the playerbase, more cohesive ideas on what they want the system to be, ideas on what works and what doesn't, market pressure from WotC/Hasbro, et cetera. I mean, it has been like 6 years since release. If you asked me to talk with the me of 6 years ago, there would be a lot of things we differ on, and that's especially true when it comes to a design team who (I assume) have had new faces and ideas and influences come and go throughout the last half decade.

If anything, and I say this whenever this kind of topic comes up, I wish they would try to push things even further. I think the older design assumptions, combined with the slow pace of releases, makes a lot of things seem basically static when it comes to character building and options. There's a lot of room to innovate, and if that innovation means raising the ceiling of power to give some concepts more room to breathe, I'm fine with that.

And that also isn't to say the design team's trajectory is always good, as mentioned:


They don't errata existing content to fix it. At least, not when it's 'too weak' or 'not fun' - stuff judged to be too strong gets nerfs, but never the opposite. They can decide aspects of the PHB ranger were weak or unsatisfying, but they won't go back and fix the ranger or its existing subclasses, instead they'll just start printing more powerful and extravagant subclasses going forward. They can decide that the sorcerer's spells known are /too/ restricted, actually, but they won't go back and fix the sorcerer or its existing subclasses, instead they'll just start printing sorcerer subclasses with a bunch of extra spells known going forward. They can decide that the warlock blade boon is weak and awkward and not very functional for the narrative concept and gameplay experience it promises, but they won't go back and fix the warlock or even just the blade boon itself, instead they'll just put out a new warlock subclass that comes with a patch to the blade boon stapled on extra, immediately making it the strongest and most front loaded warlock subclass since it has a better version of a level 3 feature at level 1 on top of being a whole complete patron apart from that.

Design principles change. Stuff that seemed balanced in development are inevitably going to start showing flaws when exposed to years of play by the public. Ideas that seemed good to designers initially are sometimes going to look like obvious mistakes a few years down the road. I happen to agree with the idea that core rangers needed some sprucing up, that the aggressively limited warlock spells known crossed the line from characterful to frustrating and that subclass spell lists are an effective and engaging correction. I agree that the bladelock didn't really click as a not-even-subclass of the very not melee warlock baseclass as originally printed & needed some touching up. Frankly, I think the monk class could still use some of that attention.

I just wish they were willing to fix the printed stuff with errata rather than publishing patches in the form of new content that eclipses rather than corrects the old. I get that they don't want players to be confused by multiple versions of the same content floating around the ecosystem, but the current practice is, imo, significantly worse.

This, I think, is a common pitfall of an iterative, patch- or expansion-based game system. I think the video game League of Legends has a similar problem (or, it's the best illustration of it that comes to mind), as the game designers there love playing whack-a-mole when it comes to nerfing existing options/champions (playable characters), while simultaneously creating new champions that disrupt the game meta with a plethora of new (and generally more powerful) mechanics/abilities. Hearthstone (as mentioned earlier in this thread) has a similar issue, though the game devs there have recently tried reverting past nerfs on older options to keep up with the shifting/increasing power levels (though this is sometimes too little, too late).

I think the main reason this occurs is because of the community. When something is (or seems) busted, people complain, often a lot and everywhere. This is justified, because not everyone can "just house rule it out" or wants to ask their DM to make concessions for their own preference, and sometimes the abilities are genuinely disruptive. The people who like it generally don't say much, or aren't as vocal, because their preferences are status quo. Yet, after hearing the complaints, WotC nerfs it, and the complaints stop, and the people who liked the options grit their teeth, because at that point the discussion has gone on too long and the nerf bat has been swung and it's hard to unswing it, because then the complaints would come back, and that's generally how game design goes. It's just safer to nerf things compared to buffing them. Strong options will get chosen all the time, giving them ample spotlight. Weak options will just be ignored, unless the player is new or a masochist or really likes the concept, meaning people don't see the weakness.

On the whole, very few people care about the game's balance (5e itself is a niche hobby), and fewer still care enough to lament the fall of healing spirit or how witch bolt sucks - most people just want to play the game.

[quindraco]

When Tasha's came out, a lot of us looked at the power creep/spell inflation for the two sorcerous origins with dismay since it departed from a core aspect of the sorcerer class: limited spell selection. Back in 2016, in a post on the WoTC web site, the devs went into some detail on how to modify a class (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes), form a conceptual PoV, and what not to mess with.



In Xanathar's they didn't up the spell count, but they did provide some new features and expand (Divine Soul) access to other spell lists. In SCAG they didn't depart from that base guidance.

In Tasha's they threw their own book away.

Their other power creep move was in how they amped up the power of Spell Attack/Spell Save DC items as compared to rarity. (Moon Sickle for Druid being but one example).

While all of us have seen, in each edition, power creep manifest itself in a number of ways, it seems to have gotten out of hand with Tasha's.

Have they reached the point of no Return?
And, as I suspect is happening as a root cause, has MtG product line compatibility infested their core model to the detriment of attempts at balance?

My son plays both MTG and Hearthstone (I only play the latter) and we discuss power creep in that form of game with some frequency. Collectible card games struggle with power creep since 'shiny new card sells for money' is a powerful incentive for making that next card pack "just a little better so that everyone will want to buy one". Is there no way to stop this mind set from further penetrating 5e, or is this inevitible, like death and taxes? :smallfrown:

My other pet peeve, race based feats, violates their own guidline also.
(This from an early UA that had example feats, how they were developed, and what made each better or worse from a design pespective. Mearls wrote most of that one)


The sorcerous origin with the largest spell list is Divine Soul, which is still true post-Tasha's. Neither Aberrant nor Clockwork Soul have access to a spell list as large, so Tasha's did not break new ground for origins with large spell lists.
The only magical foci with out-of-band abilities in Tasha's are the Amulet of the Devout and, technically, the Moon Sickle, but the Moon Sickle isn't as powerful as it looks, since it's magic weapon on a chassis of a contender for worst weapon in the game; the really powerful thing about the Sickle is the healing buff, but I'm skeptical a +X Moon Sickle is actually better than a +X Rod of the Pact Keeper. Oh, and Bloodwell Vials are ludicrously overpowered depending on a) how many of them you can get and b) how extensively your DM is willing to houserule their particularly strange rules interactions. That said, Bloodwell Vials are an example among myriad of how none of the Tasha's content was playtested pre-release, so its RAW is particularly broken - it doesn't read like it was a deliberate attempt at power creep.
While Tasha's has power creep - every core class gets at least one new optional ability, which means every PC is now at least slightly more powerful - the nerfs to Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade alone were so thorough most DMs are already houseruling them to make them somewhat functional.


I think Tasha's is less evidence of inevitable power creep and more evidence that quality control may simply be gone now. The book is rife with both accidentally overpowered things and accidentally underpowered things, sometimes even both at once (Primal Companions), and some of the RAW is so bad it's literally unplayable without a DM to reword it so it has actual meaning (Arcane Firearm). If this keeps up, the next book we get may not even be spellchecked.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think Tasha's is less evidence of inevitable power creep and more evidence that quality control may simply be gone now. We have an accord. :smallsmile:

[PhantomSoul]

[LIST=1]
If this keeps up, the next book we get may not even be spellchecked.

I didn't realise they were properly checking any spells after the PHB!

(But entirely agreed that Tasha's reads and feels and plays like bad untested homebrew that largely wouldn't be allowed in games at the tables I'm in. And, barring a couple cases where it's almost just a game of seeing how absolutely terrible they're doing, Tasha's is explicitly banned. Well, to the extent that you can ban an optional thing that is mostly being treated as never having existed.)

[RogueJK]

The sorcerous origin with the largest spell list is Divine Soul, which is still true post-Tasha's. Neither Aberrant nor Clockwork Soul have access to a spell list as large, so Tasha's did not break new ground for origins with large spell lists.

I think you're missing the point. We're talking about Aberrant/Clockwork getting a large number of additional Spells Known, not just an expanded list of available spells that they can choose from when selecting their limited number of spells known. A Clockwork/Aberrant Sorcerer knows 9/10 more spells than any other Sorcerer subclass. This means they know roughly twice as many spells of Levels 1-5 as any other Sorcerer, including Divine Soul. That's huge, compared to other Sorcerers. And even more so when you take into consideration WotC's comment that one of the Sorcerer's primary balancing factors was supposedly that they had noticeably fewer spells known than other full casters.

And besides, Aberrant/Clockwork even have expanded spell lists to choose from as well, since they can swap these extra spells for other spells of certain schools from the sorcerer, warlock, or wizard spell list. Yes, that's not as wide of a selection of non-Sorcerer spells as a Divine Soul, who has access to an entire spell list from another class, but poaching some Wizard or Warlock Enchantment/Divination/Transmutation/Abjuration spells is just the secondary gravy on top of the primary bonus of having roughly twice as many spells known.

[Segev]

Perhaps there's room for a fan project or third party product of suggested "Cauldron Catch-Up" things that bring older material in line with the newer? Assuming the newer isn't, itself, overpowered, the power creep could be seen as a correction on underpowered options from earlier on.

[loki_ragnarock]

While all of us have seen, in each edition, power creep manifest itself in a number of ways, it seems to have gotten out of hand with Tasha's.

Have they reached the point of no Return?
And, as I suspect is happening as a root cause, has MtG product line compatibility infested their core model to the detriment of attempts at balance?

They have indeed reached the point of no return; I bought most of the published books right up until last year, and I don't see myself resuming that or filling out the backlog, and Tasha's is much of why. It's basically a shoddy product; design principles were abandoned or changed entirely, none of it adequately justified. The sorcerer thing is at least an attempt to be interesting, which I can appreciate on some level. The cleric stuff is just off-putting. I'm sure they'll have plenty of other customers, but I've just been bottlenecked out.

I don't think MtG has much to do with it. I think it's more to do with design by committee where the committee membership changed drastically, much of the design wasn't rigorously codified, and the members were given carte blanche.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

As one person said already less of power creep really and more of bad QA. But yes I think they are at the point of no return. Since Xanathar's release the feel is less of keeping a tight and consistent design with more of what sounds cool to keep interest and be relevant. I will expect more gimmick mechanics to make an appearance in future books as well which stray from what was set when the PHB came out.

[Elbeyon]

Sorcerers had too few spells known. They needed a rewrite. It's not a bad thing to fix a mistake.

[Salmon343]

Sorcerers had too few spells known. They needed a rewrite. It's not a bad thing to fix a mistake.
Agreed. I can't fathom playing a sorcerer without the bonus spells - its not even enough to make a caster with a decent theme. The real disappointment with TCOE was that the bonus spells wasn't errata'd into the previous subclasses.

As a general thread response...

I don't agree that TCOE is power creep. Some options are stronger, but all they do is raise the floor for some of the weaker classes/subclasses, I think, and provide more flexible options. To be power creep, it would have to raise the ceiling.

Given the existence of +1 weapons and armour already, I don't think flooding the market with +1 to spell save dc and spell attack rolls is really that broken, just without precedent. 5e largely balanced casting by making save or die effects save ends, and enhancing the concentration mechanic to prevent buff stacking, so increasing the spell save dc isn't as crazy as it sounds. (Though I'm fairly biased as I dislike how common failure is for attacks and effects in D&D, anyway...)

I do agree in hating race based feats though, I've never liked the concept. They should only exist if explicitly tied to boosting race based mechanics. General feats like Elven Accuracy shouldn't really be race specific.

[MaxWilson]

Sorcerers had too few spells known. They needed a rewrite. It's not a bad thing to fix a mistake.

It's a huge oversight though, in a book filled with additions to all of the base classes including Sorcerer, and new subclasses with extra goodies relative to Dragon/Wild/Shadow/Storm sorc (and maybe even Divine Soul), not to spend a page or two providing those extra goodies for Dragon/Wild/Shadow/Storm sorcs as "optional" rules akin to the "optional" rules for making all clerics get Aura of Vitality.

If ever there was a book that ought to retroactively add stuff to subclasses, it's the book that retroactively adds a metric ton of stuff to the base classes.


Agreed. I can't fathom playing a sorcerer without the bonus spells - its not even enough to make a caster with a decent theme. The real disappointment with TCOE was that the bonus spells wasn't errata'd into the previous subclasses.

It doesn't even need to be errata (i.e. changes to future printings of books like the PHB). It could have just been a straight-up "optional" Tasha's rule.

[Elbeyon]

It's a huge oversight though, in a book filled with additions to all of the base classes including Sorcerer, and new subclasses with extra goodies relative to Dragon/Wild/Shadow/Storm sorc (and maybe even Divine Soul), not to spend a page or two providing those extra goodies for Dragon/Wild/Shadow/Storm sorcs as "optional" rules akin to the "optional" rules for making all clerics get Aura of Vitality.

If ever there was a book that ought to retroactively add stuff to subclasses, it's the book that retroactively adds a metric ton of stuff to the base classes.I agree!

The book didn't go far enough. It should have added more spells known to all the sorcerers. The designers should have been bold enough to rewrite the class and fix it.

[Pex]

All they need to do is stop being stubborn and add "bloodline" spells to those subclasses that don't have them. It's what players are clamoring for. They don't have to admit to anything, apologize, or whatever. Make it an optional rule for DMs to say here are suggested bonus spells to give to these subclasses. They don't need to change anything else.

[KorvinStarmast]

All they need to do is stop being stubborn and add "bloodline" spells to those subclasses that don't have them. It's what players are clamoring for. They don't have to admit to anything, apologize, or whatever. Make it an optional rule for DMs to say here are suggested bonus spells to give to these subclasses. They don't need to change anything else.
Bravo. An actionable suggestion, rather than a mini rant / complaint (what I wrote in the OP).
+1 :smallsmile:

[HPisBS]

Perhaps there's room for a fan project or third party product of suggested "Cauldron Catch-Up" things that bring older material in line with the newer? Assuming the newer isn't, itself, overpowered, the power creep could be seen as a correction on underpowered options from earlier on.

I like that title lol, I think I might take you up on that.

The thing is, I only really have ideas for the content I actually like - or wish that I liked.

Collab?


Edit:

It's a huge oversight though, in a book filled with additions to all of the base classes including Sorcerer, and new subclasses with extra goodies relative to Dragon/Wild/Shadow/Storm sorc (and maybe even Divine Soul), not to spend a page or two providing those extra goodies for Dragon/Wild/Shadow/Storm sorcs as "optional" rules akin to the "optional" rules for making all clerics get Aura of Vitality.

If ever there was a book that ought to retroactively add stuff to subclasses, it's the book that retroactively adds a metric ton of stuff to the base classes.


It doesn't even need to be errata (i.e. changes to future printings of books like the PHB). It could have just been a straight-up "optional" Tasha's rule.

All they need to do is stop being stubborn and add "bloodline" spells to those subclasses that don't have them. It's what players are clamoring for. They don't have to admit to anything, apologize, or whatever. Make it an optional rule for DMs to say here are suggested bonus spells to give to these subclasses. They don't need to change anything else.


Hear, hear!

[fbelanger]

It is a not a power creep thing, but a cool creep thing.
Xanathar and Tasha don’t produce that much more powerful character, but certainly much more cool to play.

[Amdy_vill]

I have always disliked the use of power creep when a game has a shallow pool of content. 5e compared to previous editions and other tabletops is a really shallow game still finding its footing at least in terms of spells and class design. we have only really had 2 expansions XGtE and TCoE, everything else is adventures or setting books with a small amount of content. magic items have found their stride and have become rather consistent post-XGtE. given we not only get magic items in nearly every book but we also get a large amount of them. classes and spells lack this footing and races have been completely revamped. they are still exploring the design space and trying to figure out both what works and what is fun. the biggest problem with the OG sorcerer was its spell limitations. it was too limited. tasha corrected sever mistakes in their new class features and with the UA we have seen they are correcting more of them in newer books. the big problem here IMHO is not that they are correcting these problems but that they are not doing it gracefully. despite completely reworking ranger they don't admit they made a mistake, they don't update older books instead they are putting fixes in new books and new subclasses. I don't think we should talk about this in terms of power creep. while it may seem like we have a lot of content we have only really gotten 3 realizes. if after a 4th or 5th expansion we still see rising power that is a problem.

This is only a tangent but I have also seen the community overreact and look at new ideas as if they are power creep and after the dust settles and people get that time to play with it they often find it to be middle of the road. we have gotten overhyped about so many races and classes and when they came out they never lived up to it.

I have read through some of you post and back fixing is something they should do, a lot of subclasses need it as a lot of them were not only bad at realise but are even worst now. almost all of the PHB subclasses need some amount of fixing and XGtE has some real big problems considering that was when they were playing around with the no cool downs and stat base cool downs idea. these things should be updated and if WotC will not do it the community will.


All they need to do is stop being stubborn and add "bloodline" spells to those subclasses that don't have them. It's what players are clamoring for. They don't have to admit to anything, apologize, or whatever. Make it an optional rule for DMs to say here are suggested bonus spells to give to these subclasses. They don't need to change anything else.

I feel really bad saying this but I don't think this will ever happen. they have said live on camera the ranger was a perfectly made class that didn't need changes. this is the same company that doesn't ban cards because they are of iconic characters. I think what we have gotten so far is as far as it will go. new content fixing old. I mean undying is getting a replacement in the undead. Dragonborn is getting 3 and kobolds are finally getting one.

[Segev]

I like that title lol, I think I might take you up on that.

The thing is, I only really have ideas for the content I actually like - or wish that I liked.

Collab?



Might not be a bad idea. :)

[Hael]

Overall I'd say they did a decent job of keeping "power creep" in check, aside from a very few feats (Elven Accuracy) and subclasses (hexblade). We're almost 7 years into 5e and you can build at least one character of any PHB class using PHB-only options that is comfortably in the same power range as an optimized character using all the supplements.

They did a pretty good job relatively speaking (vis a vis other editions), but I’m not sure I agree with the last point. What does comfortably within the same power range mean? I can build optimized subclasses or multi class that are basically the same thing but can for instance double the dpr as the phb only. This was true even as early as Xanather. For instance scagtrips and shadow blade combo basically doubled an arcane tricksters damage. It completely altered the feel of the class, from something that was more utility to a premiere damage dealer.

Revised Gloomstalker vs PHB beastmaster. Etc

Anyway, Xanathers was more explicit power creep. Hexblade and gloom stalker are simply the best subclasses with features that are out of line with PHB. Tashas by contrast is with some exceptions more subtle. A peace domains lvl1 seems fine by itself, but combod with paladin auras and say eloquence bards (who have more inspirations), and parties as a whole start to stress some of the games math. I find the latter much more insidious, bc it’s so much more difficult to detect for GMs.

[Tanarii]

Mearls isn't in charge of D&D TTRPG design, the team has changes as of at least early 2020. And it's pretty clear with Tasha's and following UAs that their design goals have also changed pretty drastically as a result.

Personally, I find this change to be detrimental so far. Although I must say, I never thought I'd see Mearls not being in charge of D&D as a bad thing. :smallamused:

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

When Tasha's came out, a lot of us looked at the power creep/spell inflation for the two sorcerous origins with dismay since it departed from a core aspect of the sorcerer class: limited spell selection. Back in 2016, in a post on the WoTC web site, the devs went into some detail on how to modify a class (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes), form a conceptual PoV, and what not to mess with.

And many more of us looked at these origins with joy because we felt Sorcerer was far too constricted by it's overly-limiting number of Spells Known and finally felt you could play a Sorcerer without taking the same list of Greatest Hits available on the Sorc's spell list. I and many others don't really consider "limited spells known" to be a core part of the Sorcerer identity.

If anything what should be done is the old subclasses should be given origin spells as well, but WotC is extremely reluctant to go back and update old material, see: Ranger.

I think one problem you're running into here is that you're reading guidelines (meant for others creating homebrew; these weren't meant to be internal WotC documents for staff) and processing them as hard and fast rules that cannot, under any circumstances, be violated, which simply isn't the case. It's okay for the game to evolve in change in response to feedback. Many players were unhappy with what the sorcerer was putting out; much of the time, Wizard felt like a superior choice. This bridges the gap a bit. Most people I play with consider the changes positive, only wishing they were backported to the other origins as well, but homebrew can easily solve that.

As for the rest of your post... You seem to be doom-saying due to hypothetical decisions that WotC has not even made yet. I don't know what to tell you about that really other than myself and many others (everyone I know personally who plays 5e) enjoy the current direction 5e is taking, with the main complaints being that they are too reluctant to make bigger, more sweeping changes, and that they really ought to listen to their contractors more. It's always a bit disappointing to see a UA or content previews come out with all kinds of flavorful, impactful options and writing and see them reduced to mere shadows of their past selves.

[KorvinStarmast]

spells and class design.
The spell list is already too bloated as is. It needs liposuction.

and back fixing is something they should do
They did make an effort for Ranger in Tasha's, so I guess that's a first step.

I never thought I'd see Mearls not being in charge of D&D as a bad thing. :smallamused: he's an idea man, not a nuts and bolts man. I thought the combo platter of him and Crawford was a nice pairing ... but I am not in charge.

If anything what should be done is the old subclasses should be given origin spells as well, but WotC is extremely reluctant to go back and update old material, see: Ranger.
Yeah.

As for the rest of your post... You seem to be doom-saying due to hypothetical decisions that WotC has not even made yet. Not really; my concern is a drop in quality, and I am not the only one to express that. The other concern is that if you tinker with the basic design framework you create more loopholes and cracks. (And that was true big time in previous editions, all of them).

Note: I do understand the commercial pressure to do this, keep making each published item "newer and improveder". Gygax made mention of this back in the late 70's in a Dragon article as 'once you have sold a lot of copies of the game you need to offer a new product or your product line kills your company,' hence modules and supplements and later FR novels and Dragonlance novels...

[stoutstien]

IMO the only thing in 5e that is really power creep is the GGtR backgrounds. The rest has some sway but falls within my personal tolerance of worst/best.
Spell bloat and homogenization of spell list is getting there but the PHB still has the worst offenders for game breaking options.

[Amdy_vill]

The spell list is already too bloated as is. It needs liposuction.

I disagree, 5e spell list is not bloated it's badly managed. it has 502 spells compared to other similar games or older editions with over 1000 spells. those editions spell lists aren't called bloated, and 5e shouldn't either. the problem in 5e is we have 400 different ways of dealing damage. other editions and systems focus less on damage-dealing spells and more on interesting utility spells.

5es bloat is not it having too many spells but too many spells that do one thing and so many of them are useless compared to other spells. like fireball, it's the best damage dealing spell at 3rd level, but there are 48 other 3rd level spells that focus on dealing damage. In a better-designed game, you would have fewer damage-dealing spells and they would be a real choice of which to pick instead of one choice miles above others.

[Telwar]

I've never been impressed by this edition of WotC. I am surprised that they've mostly kept subclasses roughly in tune, with a few outliers (hexblades, say).

And one of the things that irritated me with Tasha's is that they didn't go back and edit in bonus spells known for previous sorcerer subclasses when giving the new subclasses bonus known spells. I can see that would be hard work, since even with the bloated spell list* it's hard to come up with 5 elemental agnostic "dragon" spells, or wild magic for that matter. But it's much easier to out in two pages of battlemaster maneuver combinations, so they went with that instead.

* - I wonder how often some spells are actually known or prepared.

[RogueJK]

it's hard to come up with 5 elemental agnostic "dragon" spells

Well, assuming you're following the pattern of Aberrant/Clockwork, it'd be 2 additional spells for each level from 1-5. So how about:

1: Absorb Elements, Chromatic Orb
2: Dragon's Breath, Alter Self
3: Elemental Weapon, Protection from Energy
4: Elemental Bane, Fire Shield
5: Maelstrom, Control Winds

(Level 5 is definitely the hardest to find appropriate multi-elemental/draconic-themed spells.)

[stoutstien]

Well, assuming you're following the pattern of Aberrant/Clockwork, it'd be 2 additional spells for each level from 1-5. So how about:

1: Absorb Elements, Chromatic Orb
2: Dragon's Breath, Alter Self
3: Elemental Weapon, Protection from Energy
4: Elemental Bane, Fire Shield
5: Maelstrom, Control Winds

(Level 5 is definitely the hardest to find appropriate multi-elemental/draconic-themed spells.)

Could have a " one free pick" at 5th level on place of 2 spells known.

That or just add some more freaking sorcerer specific spells to the game.

[Amnestic]

I can see that would be hard work, since even with the bloated spell list* it's hard to come up with 5 elemental agnostic "dragon" spells, or wild magic for that matter.

While I haven't made a list for dragon sorc, I did make lists for both my dragon warlock and dragon druid...

Warlock (spell level)
1st Absorb Elements, Command
2nd Locate Object, Shatter
3rd Elemental Weapon, Nondetection
4th Private Sanctum, Fire Shield
5th Dominate Person, Hold Monster

Druid (class level)
2nd Absorb Elements, Command
3rd Alter Self, Dragon's Breath
5th Elemental Weapon, Fly
7th Freedom of Movement, Private Sanctum
9th Geas, Scrying

There's definitely other ones you can choose too.

I don't know if it was just a Baldur's Gate thing but Wild Mages in that had special exclusive spells that interacted with surges. Wouldn't mind seeing those return.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree, 5e spell list is not bloated it's badly managed. it has 502 spells compared to other similar games or older editions with over 1000 spells. Which is (censored). I think 'how many spells' disagreements boil down to matters of taste.

[LudicSavant]

I don't agree that TCOE is power creep. Some options are stronger, but all they do is raise the floor for some of the weaker classes/subclasses, I think, and provide more flexible options. To be power creep, it would have to raise the ceiling.

A lot of stuff is raising the floor, and I agree that raising the floor isn't power creep. But I think some stuff is raising the ceiling, too. Druids and Clerics were quite strong before Tasha's, for example, and they got some pretty hefty new tools for their already-strongest subclasses.

[KorvinStarmast]

A lot of stuff is raising the floor, and I agree that raising the floor isn't power creep. But I think some stuff is raising the ceiling, too. Druids and Clerics were quite strong before Tasha's, for example, and they got some pretty hefty new tools for their already-strongest subclasses. Bard spell list mod did something that made my Lore bard better: Slow, added to the list so I don't have to burn a Magical Secrets on it.

Lore bards are already a good class, not sure they had to get this boost but I sure appreciated it.

Your point on Druids is spot on, and Twilight Cleric has me shaking my head, and wondering "where did a 300' radius come from? Nothing is that big at low levels, is it, except extreme range for a long bow?"

[stoutstien]

Bard spell list mod did something that made my Lore bard better: Slow, added to the list so I don't have to burn a Magical Secrets on it.

Lore bards are already a good class, not sure they had to get this boost but I sure appreciated it.

Your point on Druids is spot on, and Twilight Cleric has me shaking my head, and wondering "where did a 300' radius come from? Nothing is that big at low levels, is it, except extreme range for a long bow?"

Level 6 eagle totem barbarian option? A mile of perfect sight even in dim light.

[KorvinStarmast]

Level 6 eagle totem barbarian option? A mile of perfect sight even in dim light. For one character. But thanks, I'd forgotten that one. :smallsmile:

[HPisBS]

...
And one of the things that irritated me with Tasha's is that they didn't go back and edit in bonus spells known for previous sorcerer subclasses when giving the new subclasses bonus known spells. I can see that would be hard work, since even with the bloated spell list* it's hard to come up with 5 elemental agnostic "dragon" spells, or wild magic for that matter....

Who says they actually need to be element-agnostic? The original Storm Sorcerer UA had Conjure Elemental and Conjure Minor Elementals as bonus spells, but with the added limitation of only being able to conjure air-themed elementals with them.

A similar thing could be done with this. Here's an excerpt of my fix (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?608257-Thematic-Sorcerer-Subclass-Spells&p=24394454):


1 - Armor of Agathys, but the damage is of your Draconic element
2 - Alter Self, but adds a “Draconic Eyes” option (+ 30 ft darkvision, max 120 ft)
3 - Fear
4 - Elemental Bane (Draconic element only)
5 - Elemental Cone (Cone of Cold, but the damage is of your Draconic element)


That could actually make Dragon Sorcs more interesting as the only way to get, say, a Poison Bane spell, which could have a significant impact on party damage / tactics, since it'd add extra dice to everybody's poison attacks, which is much easier for martials to access.

Other notable mentions are Cause Fear / Heroism for 1st, Darkvision for 2nd, possibly Melf's Minute Meteors but Draconic Element (with elemental affinity only applying to first meteor) for 3rd, Stoneskin / Wall of Fire, but DE (with elemental affinity only applying on the turn you cast it) for 4th.

[Salmon343]

A lot of stuff is raising the floor, and I agree that raising the floor isn't power creep. But I think some stuff is raising the ceiling, too. Druids and Clerics were quite strong before Tasha's, for example, and they got some pretty hefty new tools for their already-strongest subclasses.

That's fair. I'm not too familiar with Druids and Clerics, so I can't make super detailed comparisons for those. At a glance they've not struck me as super strong, though. The Druid subclasses just give an alternative use for wild shape, and the Cleric subclasses do seem powerful, but not insanely so. If they are stronger, its not strong enough to be an outlier I think - you're always going to get power spikes every few books or so, like Hexblade in XGTE. If I can refine my definition some more, I would add that the raise to the ceiling would need to be fairly consistent - such that you couldn't realistically get around it by banning options, and would instead have to ban the book.

[MaxWilson]

Well, assuming you're following the pattern of Aberrant/Clockwork, it'd be 2 additional spells for each level from 1-5. So how about:

1: Absorb Elements, Chromatic Orb
2: Dragon's Breath, Alter Self
3: Elemental Weapon, Protection from Energy
4: Elemental Bane, Fire Shield
5: Maelstrom, Control Winds

(Level 5 is definitely the hardest to find appropriate multi-elemental/draconic-themed spells.)

For Dragon Sorc, I go with domination and empire-building type spells, like Fear, Sending, Suggestion, etc.

[neonchameleon]

When Tasha's came out, a lot of us looked at the power creep/spell inflation for the two sorcerous origins with dismay since it departed from a core aspect of the sorcerer class: limited spell selection. Back in 2016, in a post on the WoTC web site, the devs went into some detail on how to modify a class (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/modifying-classes), form a conceptual PoV, and what not to mess with.

In Xanathar's they didn't up the spell count, but they did provide some new features and expand (Divine Soul) access to other spell lists. In SCAG they didn't depart from that base guidance.

In Tasha's they threw their own book away.

The PHB or even the design documents behind it is not something that should be treated as unquestioned holy writ with every decision made in it being perfect. I trust no one would say that the PHB-only Ranger was some sort of perfectly balanced gem of a class that didn't need any help at all. The design guidance was pretty clearly flawed if it allowed and continued to protect the PHB ranger. (Indeed the design guidance was pretty clearly flawed because it was the work of humans).

Books like SCAG should be produced following the design guidance. Part of the point of creating central books like Xanathar's and Tasha's is so the designers can come together and evaluate the design guidance, seeing what worked (much of it) and what didn't (e.g. the ranger, and for that matter the sorcerer's spells known) and what worked but was unnecessary an can be shed without problems to make a more interesting and versatile game (with e.g. the druid subclasses having different uses for wild shape).

With any luck when the PHB was printed so too was v 1.0 of the design guidance. Xanathar's didn't ignore the design guidance so much as updated it with a few small changes to v 1.1 and Tasha's with some much more major changes to v 1.2. Are they going to produce versions of all the subclasses where the guidance has changed updated to version 1.2 guidance? Almost certainly not - buried in v1.0 was the idea of minimising errata so as not to confuse people and 1.2 didn't update that. If we're lucky they might produce an Unearthed Arcana or two that does this - but I'm not holding my breath.

There's only one thing that actually stands out to me as broken in Tasha's; the Cleric of Peace. What I suspect happened there was that the Cleric of Peace was meant to be a full on pacifist cleric with restrictions to make up for the power - but they at the last minute dropped that idea. And didn't rein in the domain enough to compensate.

[Tanarii]

I trust no one would say that the PHB-only Ranger was some sort of perfectly balanced gem of a class that didn't need any help at all.
The PHB Ranger doesn't need any help. Certainly not anything that has been suggested to date.

Nor do Sorcerers need more spells.

Nor do 4 Elements monks need cheaper Ki abilities.

[Amnestic]

The PHB Ranger doesn't need any help. Certainly not anything that has been suggested to date.

Nor do Sorcerers need more spells.

Nor do 4 Elements monks need cheaper Ki abilities.

No class needs any change. But some of them certainly wouldn't hurt from getting some. You can't tell me that Foe Slayer is a satisfying capstone for Ranger, or that the latter half of Feral Senses isn't literally worthless.

[Tanarii]

No class needs any change. But some of them certainly wouldn't hurt from getting some. You can't tell me that Foe Slayer is a satisfying capstone for Ranger, or that the latter half of Feral Senses isn't literally worthless.
It's not literally worthless. Invisible creatures aren't automatically pin-pointed, despite how many people choose to run it.

[Salmon343]

The PHB Ranger doesn't need any help. Certainly not anything that has been suggested to date.

Nor do Sorcerers need more spells.

Nor do 4 Elements monks need cheaper Ki abilities.

Not sure I agree on those. Having DMed for Rangers before, they are a special kind of bad. Pre Tasha's, their main class features were overly specific and overly strong in that specificity, meaning that they were either useless, or were boring when they weren't useless - essentially an "I win" button, which is never fun. They originally didn't get enough spells, which XGTE onwards fixed with better subclasses.

Sorcerers absolutely need more spells. The tiny amount they traditionally get isn't really enough to hold up a theme. For example, I've tried building a "light mage", using Divine Soul as a chassis. Even after offloading spells to Paladin (It's a Sorcadin build), it doesn't get enough spells to properly hold up the light theme - and that's after dropping most of the useful spells. So you get a caster that not very good at filling its caster role, and doesn't even hold up its own theme. Sorcerers are only strong with specific spell niches that work well with metamagic and their class features, which while mechanically satisfying, isn't very satisfying from a role-play perspective.

My understanding of the 4 Elements monks being bad is that its similar to why the Sun Soul isn't amazing, it gets additional options that don't synergise well with the main class. Tasha's helped fix that a ton through the Ki Fueled Monk optional class feature, which let ki based monks use their abilities, and still be able to keep up damage wise.

[Segev]

I think the problem with Beastmaster Ranger is that it's not living up to the concept it seems to promise. Its fluff treats the companion as a minion/partner that you have greater mastery of than a commoner with a pet dog, but the commoner with the pet dog (or the druid with the summoned creatures) has a more natural feel for how the independent animal minions operate because they act as their own creatures.

The Beastmaster Ranger might be better than we tend to give it credit for in terms of balancing as a subclass if we stop thinking of the beast as a creature, and start thinking of it more like the echo knight's Echo. It's a second body for the ranger that he can divide his actions between, and maybe get some extra utility out of. (Pteranodons can be flying mounts for Small rangers. I think limiting rangers to Medium creatures was a mistake, even with this realization, but hey.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the problem with Beastmaster Ranger is that it's not living up to the concept it seems to promise.
Bonus action for companion attack in PHB would have solved a lot of its initial problems ... Artificer got it. :smallfurious:

[Amnestic]

Bonus action for companion attack in PHB would have solved a lot of its initial problems ... Artificer got it. :smallfurious:

They did finally add this for the Tasha's Primal Companions...but it doesn't work with the baseline companions still :/

[Segev]

Bonus action for companion attack in PHB would have solved a lot of its initial problems ... Artificer got it. :smallfurious:

I question that; I find that annoying on Artificer, too. But that's just because I look at companions and think of them as separate creatures.

I am saying I think the beastmaster treating the beast as an extension of/extra body for the ranger is probably the right mindset.

I am unsure if that makes it "good enough," but at the very least, it makes it easier to accept the limits. Now I need to reevaluate whether it's actually as good as, say, Swarmkeeper. (Gloomstalker seems to be a high-end archetype to compare things to.)

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

The PHB Ranger doesn't need any help. Certainly not anything that has been suggested to date.

Nor do Sorcerers need more spells.

Nor do 4 Elements monks need cheaper Ki abilities.

That is your opinion but a significant portion of 5e players strongly disagree and end up extremely disappointed with PHB Ranger/Limited Sorcerers/4e monks when they give them a try. If you don't, great! You can play the standard version of those classes/subclasses still. But many people find them unpalatable and it's good for the game to shore up what are widely considered some of the weak points of class/subclass design. The designers of 5e were not perfect, they make mistakes like anyone else, and it would be fairly misguided to say that every decision they made in the beginning of the edition should be written in stone. Games evolve, mistakes are made, things are learned as the game hits wider and wider markets and is played by more and more people.

Out of curiosity, what would your solution be to the large amount of player dissatisfaction with those elements of the game?

[Silly Name]

I cannot really talk about that, as I've yet to encounter IRL a D&D GM that use them.
And while I probably live in some sort of bubble, I'm sure there is a lot of other bubbles of peoples that only care about "what are the new rules and player options that are published?" like mine also exists.

I'd be more interested in purchasing setting-specific content by WotC if it was done in an interesting way and not a slimmed-down version of previous books. Stuff like SCAG and E:RLW feel like the condensed notes of my setting books from previous editions with a few additions, the Ravnica and Theros books didn't tell me anything about their settings I couldn't learn from the MtG wikia (but they have cool mechanical options which feel somewhat novel sometimes, so there's that).

I would love it if they published a nice, thick, full of content book for Darksun or Planescape or Spelljammer - actually, scrap that, I want Spelljammer content all day every day -, but I can't shake the feeling that a new setting could have done 5e much good in terms of attracting sales.

[KorvinStarmast]

They did finally add this for the Tasha's Primal Companions...but it doesn't work with the baseline companions still :/ Which is where 'they should have done it in the first place - it would take a one word errata to fix that in the PHB. :smallfurious: (remaining rant not indulged in)

[neonchameleon]

Not sure I agree on those. Having DMed for Rangers before, they are a special kind of bad. Pre Tasha's, their main class features were overly specific and overly strong in that specificity, meaning that they were either useless, or were boring when they weren't useless - essentially an "I win" button, which is never fun. They originally didn't get enough spells, which XGTE onwards fixed with better subclasses.

That's not my experience. Mine is not only were they overly specific but even when they applied they were weak (with Primeval Awareness not even making the cut for the power of a first level spell being added to your list).


My understanding of the 4 Elements monks being bad is that its similar to why the Sun Soul isn't amazing, it gets additional options that don't synergise well with the main class. Tasha's helped fix that a ton through the Ki Fueled Monk optional class feature, which let ki based monks use their abilities, and still be able to keep up damage wise.

The other problem is that the 4 elements monks not only don't synergise with the main class but their options are too expensive. To compare the Four Elements to the Sun Soul, one of the Four Elements options is to cast Burning Hands for 2 Ki points; at level 6 the Sun Soul can cast Burning Hands as a bonus action for 2 ki points. At level 11 the Four Elements monk may take the ability to cast Fireball for 4 Ki points; the Sun Soul monk at level 11 gets the ability to cast a 2d6 radiant fireball (vs con) for free - and may raise it to 8d6 (i.e. fireball level) for 3 ki points. It's not only like sun soul in what it does - but it's far less efficient in terms of ki at it.

[Segev]

That's not my experience. Mine is not only were they overly specific but even when they applied they were weak (with Primeval Awareness not even making the cut for the power of a first level spell being added to your list).

I think the "specifics" he was talking about are things like "never getting lost in favored terrain" and "always finding enough food for you and others." It takes the exploration pillar's mechanical challenges and just removes them, rather than doing something to make the exploration pillar more interesting or engaging.

[neonchameleon]

I think the "specifics" he was talking about are things like "never getting lost in favored terrain" and "always finding enough food for you and others." It takes the exploration pillar's mechanical challenges and just removes them, rather than doing something to make the exploration pillar more interesting or engaging.

And both those are pretty much side effects of first level spells anyway. Unless your favoured terrain is Underdark and you're actually in the Underdark or there's magic at play or blizzards (when you should be huddling down anyway) the Find Familiar spell makes sending your bird up a hundred feet, seeing through its eyes, and spotting landmarks. And a single casting of the Goodberry spell will let a ranger produce food for ten people for a day. These are both common spells and these aren't even the primary uses of those spells.

[Segev]

And both those are pretty much side effects of first level spells anyway. Unless your favoured terrain is Underdark and you're actually in the Underdark or there's magic at play or blizzards (when you should be huddling down anyway) the Find Familiar spell makes sending your bird up a hundred feet, seeing through its eyes, and spotting landmarks. And a single casting of the Goodberry spell will let a ranger produce food for ten people for a day. These are both common spells and these aren't even the primary uses of those spells.

Note again that goodberry is a Ranger spell (or druid, admittedly), and no, the familiar doing that can help, but you cannot guarantee that you can avoid getting lost. The DM may well (and fairly) deem that to merely be a Help action on your effort to roll Wisdom (Survival) to navigate, granting you advantage.

This isn't, though, really the Ranger's fault in and of itself. It's the fault of the D&D 5e core rules failing to do much of anything to make exploration anything interesting enough to spend time on. There's no gameplay value to it, so what mechanics there are are viewed as a nuisance rather than as something to optimize for.

[MaxWilson]

Which is where 'they should have done it in the first place - it would take a one word errata to fix that in the PHB. :smallfurious: (remaining rant not indulged in)

More than that, since that one word would make their level 7 ability obsolete.

[Salmon343]

I think the "specifics" he was talking about are things like "never getting lost in favored terrain" and "always finding enough food for you and others." It takes the exploration pillar's mechanical challenges and just removes them, rather than doing something to make the exploration pillar more interesting or engaging.

Yep, it was the stuff to do with Natural Explorer. It's fun the first few times a Ranger uses it, but after that it just means that you ignore that mechanic - there's no chance of failure so as a DM it's not fun to prep for, and I imagine its not really fun to play as there's little choice involved, you're just skipping that mechanic.

Deft Explorer from TCOE is a lot better, you get expertise on a skill (so still roll and get enjoyment from that); and you get an increased climbing, walking, and swimming speed, which increases the amount of decent options you have so simulates being great at wilderness exploration without outright ignoring the mechanic.


And both those are pretty much side effects of first level spells anyway. Unless your favoured terrain is Underdark and you're actually in the Underdark or there's magic at play or blizzards (when you should be huddling down anyway) the Find Familiar spell makes sending your bird up a hundred feet, seeing through its eyes, and spotting landmarks. And a single casting of the Goodberry spell will let a ranger produce food for ten people for a day. These are both common spells and these aren't even the primary uses of those spells.

I don't think the issue is as pronounced there, as you're using a resource to do so. That means you have to think about doing it, as you're aware that it'll cut into your resources for the rest of the day. I do have a problem with spells being able to trivialise exploration which makes it difficult to make puzzle-like dungeons which don't feel artificial, but the fact that you're using resources to do so is much better than outright ignoring it. Options increase complexity and choice, which increase satisfaction through puzzle solving and decision making.

Ignoring mechanics only works when its hyper specific and requires a reasonable amount of investment - in other words, the choice is made up front, and planned out. Such as an elemental mage picking up options to let them ignore resistance and immunity, or a feat tree that allows you to fire accurately into melee. Something like Natural Explorer is too broad when it works - if the entire campaign is in your favoured terrain, then you essentially ignore the mechanic and all of the fun from that terrain is lost. And if the campaign isn't in that terrain, then the feature is almost always useless.

[neonchameleon]

I don't think the issue is as pronounced there, as you're using a resource to do so.

Barely. In the case of Goodberry you're using a secondary effect of a first level spell to provide food for the entire party. This is not remotely considered a powerful effect. In the case of the familiar you're using resources but not spending resources.

[Salmon343]

Barely. In the case of Goodberry you're using a secondary effect of a first level spell to provide food for the entire party. This is not remotely considered a powerful effect. In the case of the familiar you're using resources but not spending resources.
For Goodberry you're still using the slot, and made the active decision to learn/prepare it. I don't really track food/water so I've never given the spell much thought, so I suppose it could be considered too powerful in a game where food is meant to be scarce, akin to my dislike of spells like Zone of Truth in an intrigue based game.

With the familiar, you still make the decision to learn the spell. And as a DM I have no qualms killing familiars that put themselves in harms way, which prevents it being too powerful. It's definitely more fun to work with than just never getting lost.

[Theodoxus]

Re-reading the Beastmaster in the PHB, it works fine. As long as you're not expecting it to work like a Hunter from WoW - which I suspect is a major expectation for a lot of players (I know I've run into more than a few in AL who wanted to be able to send their companion in to lock down a target while they snipe at it with a longbow). And that works starting at 5th level, but still not in a way that is satisfactory for that concept.

But instead of trying to pigeonhole the Beastmaster into a specific concept, when looked at within the rules presented, it works well. Now, I do prefer the Tasha's update, especially the spells, but I wouldn't be upset if a DM said 'core only' for Ranger.

(That said, my favorite subclass for Ranger is Hunter, and I'd just use Animal Friendship to get a mighty bear or two to tank for me - provided the DM has the same idea of what constitutes "if you or one of your companions harms the [beast]..." To me, that would be directly harming, not causing/allowing harm to come to it - like fighting a gang of orcs. Of course, the rules for animal handling are pretty weak, so it'd take a bit of Session 0 hashing out to figure out exactly what can and can't be done with a charmed beast...)