Let's get a sneak peak into Tasha's

[Sol0botmate]

Wow, I didn't think they would go that far. So if feats no longer have racial restrictions you can now make

Abjuration Warding Dwarf with Svirfneblin Magic.

Level 1 Wizard with EA spamming triple d20 firebolt with Familar Help Action

Vengeance Paladin level 1 with EA.

And so much more....

I mean, I love more customization. I was missing it from 3.5 compare to 5e. But I didn't think they would go that far since racial bonuses change is already a big change.

[CMCC]

It does in my opinion:

"War Magic: Beginning at 7th level, when you use your action to cast a cantrip, you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action."

If you are Bladesinger 6 and you used your action to attack + cast cantrips, you still used your action to cast a cantrip.

I’m guessing the wording will say “replace and attack with a cantrip”, which would not be the same as using your action to cast a cantrip.

[jaappleton]

Wow, I didn't think they would go that far. So if feats no longer have racial restrictions you can now make

Abjuration Warding Dwarf with Svirfneblin Magic.

Level 1 Wizard with EA spamming triple d20 firebolt with Familar Help Action

Vengeance Paladin level 1 with EA.

And so much more....

I mean, I love more customization. I was missing it from 3.5 compare to 5e. But I didn't think they would go that far since racial bonuses change is already a big change.

Honestly some of those feats shouldn't exist to begin with.

Elven Accuracy? Any racial feat or innate, at-will spells to constantly charge Abjuration Ward?

C'mon now.

[cutlery]

With the custom race template you can add +2 to one stat then take a half feat for that stat, too, starting at an 18.

Probably not the end of the world, but I suspect custom race will be the new black.

[Sol0botmate]

I’m guessing the wording will say “replace and attack with a cantrip”, which would not be the same as using your action to cast a cantrip.

You still cast a cantrip in your action, no?

[Gignere]

Wow, I didn't think they would go that far. So if feats no longer have racial restrictions you can now make

Abjuration Warding Dwarf with Svirfneblin Magic.

Level 1 Wizard with EA spamming triple d20 firebolt with Familar Help Action

Vengeance Paladin level 1 with EA.

And so much more....

I mean, I love more customization. I was missing it from 3.5 compare to 5e. But I didn't think they would go that far since racial bonuses change is already a big change.

You’re better off just firing a crossbow below level 5 for wizards. Even if your dex is only a 14. So triple dice crossbow attack.

Vengeance Paladin isn’t so great with EA unless you’re going dex since EA doesn’t work with strength attacks.

[Sol0botmate]

With the custom race template you can add +2 to one stat then take a half feat for that stat, too, starting at an 18.

Probably not the end of the world, but I suspect custom race will be the new black.

In some cases it will be just better. IN some worse:

For example Mark of Shadow Elf Vengeance Paladin would be

DEX 17, CON 15, CHA 16. Level 4 EA +1 DEX = 18,15,16 + EA on level 4.

Using Custom Race +2 DEX would be

DEX 17, CON 15, CHA 15. Level 1 EA + 1 DEX, level 4 +1 CON + 1 CHA = 18, 16, 16 + EA on level 4.

So overall +1 more stat despite starting with only +2 chasis. But without Mark goods. No not that good.

You’re better off just firing a crossbow below level 5 for wizards. Even if your dex is only a 14. So triple dice crossbow attack.

Vengeance Paladin isn’t so great with EA unless you’re going dex since EA doesn’t work with strength attacks.

Of course I am thinking about DEX Vengeance Paladin. Getting EA at level 1 only makes it better faster with better rounded stats at level 4.

Also I could see Revenant Blade + EA being now viable on level 4 on Vengeance Pally.

[Wasp]

Are there any subclasses that are for example particularly good at low levels but bad at higher levels so that the subclass retraining options would be problematic? At the moment I kind of feel changing the subclasses shouldn't really be a problem.

And how would this apply to a Warlocks? Could you change between like chains and tome as well?

[Sol0botmate]

Are there any subclasses that are for example particularly good at low levels but bad at higher levels so that the subclass retraining options would be problematic? At the moment I kind of feel changing the subclasses shouldn't really be a problem.

And how would this apply to a Warlocks? Could you change between like chains and tome as well?

Hm, for example Elven Accuracy Samurai becomes really strong on level 11 when he regains Fighting Spirit at start of each initiative roll.

Till them it's only 3/day.

So you could play Elven Accuracy Battle Master till level 11 and then switch to Samurai for example.

Or you could play Moon Druid till level 6-9 and then switch to Shepard when your summons are fully powered and Moon Starts to lack behind with his damage and AC.

[solidork]

Are there any subclasses that are for example particularly good at low levels but bad at higher levels so that the subclass retraining options would be problematic? At the moment I kind of feel changing the subclasses shouldn't really be a problem.

I don't know if its a problem, but War Priest (War Cleric bonus action attack ability) goes from being very strong at level 1 to mostly useless later on.

[CMCC]

You still cast a cantrip in your action, no?

You do not “use your action” to cast a cantrip. You cast a cantrip by replacing an attack while using the attack action.

We’ll need the exact wording to be sure here.

[x3n0n]

And how would this apply to a Warlocks? Could you change between like chains and tome as well?

That's in a separate leak: Pact can change when you ASI; based on leaked wording of similar items, I think it's probably only on Warlock-level ASIs (Warlock 4,8,12,16,19).

[jojosskul]

Are there any subclasses that are for example particularly good at low levels but bad at higher levels so that the subclass retraining options would be problematic? At the moment I kind of feel changing the subclasses shouldn't really be a problem.

And how would this apply to a Warlocks? Could you change between like chains and tome as well?

From what I've read somwhere you can change your Pact on any ASI level, so there's some flexibility there. What that would mean if you, for instance, changed away from Blade Pact, had 3 invocation invested in it and could only swap out one? That would leave you with two invocations that did nothing until you leveled again. I have no idea honestly how that would be handled, we probably need to wait until the book is released to get clarification.

I do love the idea of changing subclasses from a thematic standpoint, especially with it either taking a conscious effort/training or a dramatic story moment to do.

I do feel like certain classes lend themselves better to the dramatic story moment change. Warlock changing patrons while in dire straights, a wild magic sorcerer exposed to strong divine power that brings their magic under control and... changes it.

On the flip side a wizard taking the time and money to retrain themselves into a new specialization? That's wizardy as hell. Same with Fighter.

For some others I could see it being based on the subclass. An Assassin Rogue wanting to become a Thief? Training. An Assassin Rogue who becomes a Phantom Rogue? Dramatic story moment, had a close encounter with some undead and BOOM ghost powers, or something.

[CMCC]

I don't know if its a problem, but War Priest (War Cleric bonus action attack ability) goes from being very strong at level 1 to mostly useless later on.

Yeah to me the arcana level 17 feature makes it the clear subclass to switch to late in the game.

And it’s easy to RP - you just need to spend a ton of down time studying.

Go from war priest 1-4 to forge 5-16 to arcana 17-20. Profit.

Or simply war 1-7 and arcana 8+ when your potent spellcasting comes online.

I’m sure there are downsides I’m discounting

[stoutstien]

Are there any subclasses that are for example particularly good at low levels but bad at higher levels so that the subclass retraining options would be problematic? At the moment I kind of feel changing the subclasses shouldn't really be a problem.

And how would this apply to a Warlocks? Could you change between like chains and tome as well?

Quite a few honestly. There is only a handful that do scale 1-20 well.

[Gignere]

Are there any subclasses that are for example particularly good at low levels but bad at higher levels so that the subclass retraining options would be problematic? At the moment I kind of feel changing the subclasses shouldn't really be a problem.

And how would this apply to a Warlocks? Could you change between like chains and tome as well?

I think this is just formalizing what a lot of DMs probably allowed their players to do, instead of rolling up all new characters. Didn’t realize what a drag not being able to speak in animal forms was, can I go caster Druid instead?

Or hey now that I got the hang of the game with Champion I want to step up my game can I just become a Battlemaster?

These are actual examples and usually DMs are cool with the swapping it’s definitely less disruptive, than rerolling new characters.

[Segev]

....I think it is, in all honesty.

I think the whole 'forget racial ability scores, do what you like' is setting up for that to be the basis of 6E.

If they didn't introduce it now in Tasha's, it'd be met with a much higher shock when its the standard of 6E.

I actually disagree. An edition change that had races not start with attribute modifiers tied to them at all, but instead just had racial packages of perks, would probably be less shock and meet less resistance than claiming stat modifiers are "racial modifiers" and then saying "but they can be any modifier you want." Tasha's approach invalidates the whole point of them being racial modifiers. I assume that a new edition would not even call them "racial modifiers" but would instead just list races as having racial perks/features/abilities/whatever. People would look at that and recognize that the ability score modifiers, if any, not being tied to race meant that they were there for optimizing in a different way.

[jaappleton]

I actually disagree. An edition change that had races not start with attribute modifiers tied to them at all, but instead just had racial packages of perks, would probably be less shock and meet less resistance than claiming stat modifiers are "racial modifiers" and then saying "but they can be any modifier you want." Tasha's approach invalidates the whole point of them being racial modifiers. I assume that a new edition would not even call them "racial modifiers" but would instead just list races as having racial perks/features/abilities/whatever. People would look at that and recognize that the ability score modifiers, if any, not being tied to race meant that they were there for optimizing in a different way.

I think overall we agree in that going forward, stats tied specifically to races are going away. The traditional "Elves get +2 Dex" is going by the wayside. What specifically will be the 6E method of character creation remains to be seen, but I believe we're in agreement that it will not abide by what's been the standard D&D trope for quite some time.

[jaappleton]

I would have...less problem with it if I thought the motive was for the actual good of the game, and not for reasons that herald a desire to cater to people who are not and never will be customers for it while not-so-subtly scolding long-time fans of the game for being bad people.

I don't know if it's going away, honestly. It will depend on whether 6e comes out in the next year or two, or comes out in several years and the current ... climate ... has a different focus. But for now, I think you're probably right.

I think they'd have avoided most of the controversy and all of the bad feeling if they'd waited for 6e to make the change.

No idea if its related, but 2024 will mark 50 years of D&D.

Seems like a solid time to launch a new edition.

[Segev]

No idea if its related, but 2024 will mark 50 years of D&D.

Seems like a solid time to launch a new edition.

There is that.

[EggKookoo]

No idea if its related, but 2024 will mark 50 years of D&D.

Seems like a solid time to launch a new edition.

I wonder if my current campaign will be wrapped up by then...

[PhoenixPhyre]

No idea if its related, but 2024 will mark 50 years of D&D.

Seems like a solid time to launch a new edition.

I do hope not. I've got too much invested in 5e to easily switch. And none of the "preview" changes (if that's what they are) make me interested in switching either.

[Amechra]

No, no it isn't.

OK, yeah, it isn't literally a secret attempt to spring a new half-edition on us. However...

• This is the first book that has actually changed the character creation process since core. The same thing goes with the alternate class features - you can have the exact same race, class, and subclass as you did before Tasha's, and still have different features.
• The "feel" of the mechanics has shifted - there are a lot of class features that involve your proficiency bonus that probably wouldn't have if they were core (seriously, just search the word "proficiency" in the spoiler doc).
• The "rebuild your character whenever you hit an ASI" thing feels less like a way to fix buyer's remorse and more of a way to "swap over" your character to one using the Tasha's rules.

[Arkhios]

My semi-barbaric paladin is stoked about Rune Knight being keyed off of Con (he has Con 16) and of the Unarmored AC magical tattoo.

Time to go full Pict.

[Unoriginal]

OK, yeah, it isn't literally a secret attempt to spring a new half-edition on us. However...

• This is the first book that has actually changed the character creation process since core. The same thing goes with the alternate class features - you can have the exact same race, class, and subclass as you did before Tasha's, and still have different features.
• The "feel" of the mechanics has shifted - there are a lot of class features that involve your proficiency bonus that probably wouldn't have if they were core (seriously, just search the word "proficiency" in the spoiler doc).
• The "rebuild your character whenever you hit an ASI" thing feels less like a way to fix buyer's remorse and more of a way to "swap over" your character to one using the Tasha's rules.

People have been asking for many of those things for years. Even on this forum only there has been a ton of "X class needs revising", "let's ignore the racial modifiers and use X system instead" and even variations of "too dependent on stat need alternative".

The Tasha's is not the harbinger of a new edition, or even a big modification like a shift to a .5 version would be. It's a "vitamine shot" to maintain the interest for 5e on the market.

[cutlery]

People have been asking for many of those things for years. Even on this forum only there has been a ton of "X class needs revising", "let's ignore the racial modifiers and use X system instead" and even variations of "too dependent on stat need alternative".

The Tasha's is not the harbinger of a new edition, or even a big modification like a shift to a .5 version would be. It's a "vitamine shot" to maintain the interest for 5e on the market.

As far as vitamin shots go, it really seems like a good one.

The spell personalization stuff could be really neat (I haven't seen much actual talk about it, but I am looking forward to it - what would be great would be a "create your own spells" framework), and the new items are pretty cool. Sure, anyone could have made an item with the stuff in the DMG, but having more pre-made items will really help DMs and the people that create prepackaged adventures.

[Arkhios]

The Tasha's is not the harbinger of a new edition, or even a big modification like a shift to a .5 version would be. It's a "vitamine shot" to maintain the interest for 5e on the market.

Agreed. It would be foolish to print a book with new options for existing base rules just to start processing a new edition immediately as a result. New edition at this point would undermine their own profits.

[EggKookoo]

On the other hand, 2nd Edition was backwards compatible for the most part with 1st Edition and I ran a campaign with 1st Edition rules with a few 2nd Edition and homebrew sprinkled in for 30 years. 5th Edition has been received extremely well so I would imagine there would be some backwards compatibility for any new edition should it come out in the future.

I was thinking that if Tasha's is a preview of a forthcoming 6e, it will probably be very 5e-compatible the way 2e was with 1e.

Agreed. It would be foolish to print a book with new options for existing base rules just to start processing a new edition immediately as a result. New edition at this point would undermine their own profits.

Not so sure. Put out Tasha's as a set of optional upgrades. Gauge player response (as well as the larger social/PR response). If positive, start folding that content into a new package of core rulebooks. Spend ~3 years playtesting. In 2024, release D&D 6e, with the benefits of people already largely using it via Tasha's, and it being mostly backward-compatible with 5e. But now you have new core books to sell.

[Chaosmancer]

I understand. I also don't want every Monk or Dex Fighter dipping one level for free concentration-less +d6 on nearly every attack for their entire career. I am not sure how much stronger they could have made it without it being the best thing an Extra Attacker could dip after level 5.

I guess that is somewhat fair, but as someone who prefers mono-classed characters, I don't really mind. It isn't something I feel is really too rough, especially since that level could have spent somewhere else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It does somewhat scale, which is nice, you get it earlier than spells, and it opens up a spell slot and spell known. I am okay with it as it makes Hunter's Mark less of a spell tax. I would have loved it if it didn't take concentration though, stacking Favored Foe with Hunter's Mark could've been extremely nice, but as is, I actually like it, especially because it doesn't consume a bonus action, helping two-weapon fighting Rangers and Polearm Master/Heavy Weapon Rangers.

The not taking a bonus action is a huge thing, which really tempts me to like this, but I have to think on it a lot more before I decide what I'm going to do.

[sithlordnergal]

A Druid won't don metal armor, so no.

Tell that to my Plate Armor wearing Fighter/Druid. The fluff has no mechanical detriments, and so have no bearing on the Druid

In all seriousness, I don't know what to make of Tasha's so far. On the one hand I love certain things, like being able to modify one's ability scores. That's awesome, it opens the gates for so many off the wall builds because you're no longer hamstringing yourself if you make a Halfling Barbarian since they lack Strength and Con. On the other hand, I don't know if I like the potential changes to spells like Booming Blade. That tends to be a staple in my builds, specifically Rogues and such. I'd rather it not be messed with.