Love that you took a moment to highlight and appreciate the art of the book for the public, the artist usually don't see much love in these reviews because the main focus is the technical side of the content, your review instead, was simple and easy to follow.
I wonder if the days of fear and loathing in DnD in gone. Back when we started, death was always potentially 1 roll away and it had multiple vectors to approach the players. Hit point loss, level drains, ability drains, and instant death effects meant that players approach combat much more cautiously. We were just as likely to avoid combat as enter into it, precisely because of the risks involved. I feel like that's been lost over time, and I think the game is a little poorer for it.
Like with video game RPGs, just played FF1 remastered and it's classic RPG. Exploring, needing resources, camping, needing to go back to town... But many RPGs have headache free "turn random encounters off" or such... These games are still fun but they lack that tension ff1 had of me going through a dungeon and wondering: am I gonna be able to get out of here and use a tent to rest? Will I be able to make it back to town? I'm running out of potions and I'm out of undead wiping dia magic... That tension is sadly just gone
I don't know that it's often enough emphasized the people can play the game/edition they prefer to play. I think friction happens when the DM doesn't communicate expectations players/vice versa.
It was a bit too shitty for me back then - but as an onlooker not a player these days, the game seems to have become rather under-shitty. Plus, as the Prof notes, every character seems to be able to do a little of everything now, if the player wants that. I prefer smallish menus of tough choices - 'If you want to be/do X, then Y is off the table.'
@@notreallydavid I have always called myself a mean DM and I stand by that, but I like letting players get all the abilities they want. I think original DND was a little too specialized in terms of who could do what, with the notable exception that clerics have been broken from the start. (full plate + significant spellcasting and more hit points/better THAC0 than a rogue, I rest my case.) and much like old video game RPGs if you want your character to be able to do it all a little bit why not? I am annoyed by many of the mechanics now, the removal of truly dangerous traps, how neutered Tomb of Annihilation and Acererack was compared to it's "spiritual predecessor" Tomb of Horrors, the prevalence of darkvision and spell type immunity, and most of all the stats are whatever you feel like because of what it means for the world. The average 25 pound kobold and the average 400 pound minotaur now have the same strength, and also cap at the same strength. That's idiotic, but as much as that annoys me I'd have allowed it on an individual basis in my games if the player had approached me with it and a compelling background related reason why. I had a character playing a winged elf child who had a 20 strength, but her background was that, desperate to help her adopted family, she had been led astray by a warlock and made a pact with his patron, a being whose core philosophy is "Sacrifice what you treasure most to gain what you should not have." She sacrificed her flight for unnatural strength. All that being said, I have no problems making 5e deadly. I warn my players going in and it tends to play out that way. No amount of carebear supplements and core rules can overcome a modicum of DM preparation and intent in terms of the tone and feel of the world you want to create.
@solomani I agree. I have adopted the Five Torches Deep system (which uses the 5e mechanics but scales it to OSR) and my players are still ambivalent about it after 2 sessions. There's no Street Fighter II-esque "special moves" like in standard 5e, but there are buffs when the characters go up in level. Something to check out. PDM did a review of it a while back.
@@johnsmith3085 I keep wanting to like Five Torches Deep, or Runehammer's Hardcore Mode, but they both feel kind of clunky to me. "Fixing" a game to be something it's not. On the other hand, I find OSE (Basic D&D) mechanically boring -though GREAT procedures for running the game, and nice clean rules. I added a system of Talents (kind of Feats or Perks) that have the feel of the "Street Fighter" moves, but keeps everything at a fast and dangerous level of play.
Absolutely agree. Much of Tasha’s accelerates the power creep already inherent in 5e’s resource management. For me 5e vanilla is fundamentally broken and needs heavy house ruling to run any type of exploration/resource management game. I bought Tasha’s but am actively looking for another system, and currently looking into Forbidden Lands and Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Thank you for approaching this from a DM perspective. So sick of every review being about classes, subclasses, feats and other player crunch and glossing over DM utility. It's like the early days of 3.0 over again with feats and prestige classes ad nauseum
Feats helped with small groups and added some interest but they were a bit much, especially as they leveled up and become super-sayan. PDM has excellent perspective and commands the language to express it. He really nails it over and over. Personally, I like it when a player has a character in mind, picks feats or whatever to fit that role and plays a cool game rather than "maximize damage" or something technical. So the elaborate prestige classes could be a boon for the right players to add some sense of feeling but it seemed like mostly I had players building some kind of death machine that by 6th level achieved a glorious multi attack that reminded me of a video game more than a RPG.
Short and sweet review, nice! I dig it... Also, kudos on starting at the back of the book... jumped right into the hidden gems of Tasha's for sure. Well done!
@@chrisk3824 I'm a fan of a lot of D&D RUclipsrs. You are too evidently, lol. Good to see ya again. Hmmm... where will I show up next. Let's see... Cheers friend!
There is a time and place for everything. I like to give my players a lot of freedom, but now and then it does come time to shut them down on something. It isn't too often, so generally I don't get a ton of pushback about it. Usually it boils down to "I have to draw a line SOMEWHERE." Give them slack. But don't let go of the reins.
I've never told a player outright no except once, when he came to me with a 3.5 race mix that included 3 "halfs". I once had to tell a player who made a pathfinder character focusing around magic missiles that he'd feated/metamagic'd up to do approximately 50 damage a round that his character was a math problem and a very easy one to solve, you're not going to have easy encounters just because he's powerful, so if that character is going to be fun for you to play go for it, but otherwise you're barely even rolling any dice. He decided not to play it. Most of the time I just have to made it clear the things that I think create issues and why, such as early level flight is an issue because characters with flight are either in horrific danger (drop to 0 in mid air and then take falling damage and you're dead) or no danger at all (no ranged attacks from enemies) in every encounter and that steers them away. The most irritating thing to me is just monster races because their backstories are usually nonsensical or unreasonably difficult to work into the story, they don't fit my world, and players like to ignore the warnings and get frustrated when religious and superstitious townsfolk don't want their bugbear or tiefling or kobold around. Rambling aside, I'll generally give players whatever they want, but the difficulty scales up with their power, and I'm not cutting them any slack if they ignore my warnings and press for dumb things that don't fit or create scenarios they weren't prepared for.
You should make a book called “DeathBringer”. The reason why is that name is perfect style of what you are talking. The book will answer one question, How to make death lurk around every corner without alway killing your party every time.” You always seem to hint at this theme. Almost like you have a brewing secret, But struggle to explain it, or won’t for complication reasons. I for one would love to see a DeathBringer book. - loved the review for me it’s to much, at some point all that stuff of buffing characters gets in the way of actual story telling when I DM. I want to concentrate on building in-depth stories that emotionally binds you to the game, not statistical mayhem.
@@zeterzero4356 Exactly. As a DM of 30+ years this is what I think about and try to master the most. I think my current players (a new group as I just moved) aren't afraid enough. My old group who included a few who had suffered through my truly cruel DMing as a teenager were on the opposite end of the spectrum. Balance is tough.
Playing with 6-8 people sounds like a nightmare! I have always played with 3-5 people, DM included, so for me sidekicks are a fantastic way to build up a party
There were always semi-official ways to beat the level limits in earlier editions. For example, the Grove of Meditation in Synnoria on Gwynneth in the Moonshae Isles (Forgotten Realms, Faerun). If an elven mage (or fighter/MU) of sufficient Intelligence had sufficient XP to level up beyond their limits, and meditated in the Grove for 1d6 months, they could advance that extra level. Made for interesting pilgrimages to these sorts of locations, or quests for arcane/divine favour, for these extraordinary level bumps.
I've actually spoken about this with my DM before the release of Tasha's. The obvious ones being a change to Cleric, Warlock or Paladin. There are ways to RP other class changes but relinquishing your power to a powerful entity for the promise of a different power makes sense to me. I've even spoken to my DM about the possibility of reviving a dead PC as one of those classes (it might seem a bit cheesy but it makes sense to do it that way, if at all)
@@cajbajthewhite4889 Yes, it was some kind of homebrew. Pretty sure it was a rogue sub-class, but it may have been it's own thing with those swash points or whatever they where called... Wait, no I meant to say he was always a Bard... Please no not the rats!
The Player's Handbook II from the 3.x days actually had optional rules for changing the class of previous levels. There's already a rule that you can swap out one thing every level (a feat, 4 ranks in a skill, a single spell if you're a sorcerer or bard, that kind of thing). We decided that this should be doable but special circumstances would be required, it had to be 'big deal" and explained in-universe. Basically I had a character that wanted to be an Arcane Trickster that had started out as a level 1 bard then switched to wizard, then rogue. With a lot of in-universe effort on the part of the character, that 1 level of bard was swapped with 1 level of wizard making the character qualify to become an arcane trickster a level sooner. We chose to see it not as a retcon but as a focusing hard one one skill set while another atrophied. Many skills are perishable in real life after all.
That's great but as a dm that usually works with new players i now have to tell them that their custom made pc isn't acceptable. I know it's not that big a deal but it just sucks you know. It's not fun being told no.
@@marklaurenzi1609 oh I do run a session 0 for all my campaigns. But I find most players already have a character they wanna play when they show up. Most don't build there concept at the table.
@@marklaurenzi1609 Good luck stoping them! They may have rolled up the character before your campaign was even a concept! Personally, when I play, I like to have a handfull of pre-made characters, and use whichever one would best fit with the campaign the D.M. wants to run.
As always, great review. I personally hate when my players get pets and things like that, because that means more work for me, work that most of the party will not enjoy: Player: I give my dog a pat GM: Please don't make me think nor roleplay the dog's reaction...
I am surprised you didn't mention Rune Knight. He is absolutely awesome subclass that allow Fighter to do multiple stuff during his turn and now Fighter have access to one of the most powerfull feature in game: Storm Rune
I think the racial bonuses outside of stat improvements are enough to make each race feel and perform differently. The stat bonuses IMO, should be linked to class, if linked to anything at all. If you're a Barbarian, you've been training your strength. It doesn't matter if you're a gnome or a human; if you've spent the time in physical training, you should see a strength improvement: +2 to strength for every Barbarian. If you're a Wizard, you've been studying/reading for years: +2 Intelligence. It's less about the racial aptitude and more about where you spend your time, which is, if anything more akin to real life than simply being born into higher strength, which if you don't harness, withers. It works both in terms of realism, and in terms of in-game logic, and overall it means you can create much more interesting combinations of races/classes without feeling like you're being punished for being flavourful.
This was also my thinking. Each of the races get enough features, for the most part, to where replacing ability scores and such doesn't really compromise their identity so much as allow the player to define their own.
As a DM I would be pretty hesitant to allow players to use the custom lineage system. It dilutes the significance of being a race. A player could certainly pitch their character concept to me but I would challenge them on their position before making a decision.
Honestly, that "RPG Singularity" sounds like the absolute worst thing for Dungeons and Dragons. It takes all the flavor out of the different races, and if all the races are basically human... Why are there other races?
erhm, roleplaying? I mean it's literally a role playing game, i have a first generation tiefling, offspring of human female and male cambion, who's looking to trace his demonic heritage. As such he's a demon summoner. Functionally, the stats and numbers really don't matter here. His looks, views and history do. Dnd is so much more than numbers. For me the charisma bump worked out, but if i could've taken +2 in int i would've and it wouldn't have made my character less special to me.
@@ImmortaL0Shadow i understand but the numbers should be a representation of the character, the adition to te races was unnesesary, they stop feeling diferent or special becoming only a skin for the character. if you want for exaple a tifling warrior just put the high scores on streng and constitution, this adition is unnecesary
@@elhoteldeloserrantes5056 i disagree. For the minmaxer, race is just the bonuses. So every fighter is a str/con hybrid, every wizard int, every rogue dex,... And they choose the race that has those stats. For rp people, they choose a character and fill out the stats afterwards, but that makes some combinations inherently worse than others, hampering creativity. On the other side, a wizard with bad int might also have some fun roleplay moments, but it's just such a disadvantage that for most, it's not worth it. If you give people the freedom, minmaxers will keep optimizing the fun out of the game as they always have, and rp'ers will keep making interesting characters. IMO it just provides more options.
Tofu is extremely healthy to eat, so why not eat only it? Because flavor is important and I like a variety. Yes I am hungry right now and can't decide what to eat.
"Put the Master in Dungeon Master" Love it. My thoughts is this book is aimed at new players that don't know you can homebrew and Adventures League players that are frustrated with the limitations.
Yea, that's all and good about putting the Master in Dungeon Master, but I'm going to take the Player out of Player Character and walk away if this is the attitude you take.
I don`t get it. My PCs take the Actions I allow them to take ( "the chasm is to big to jump over" aka No), meet the NPCs I put in the world and have the magic items I let them find. If they throw to much fireballs my bad guys will get fire resistance, if the fighters dish to much punishment out ...make a Wisdom saving throw... I am the dungeon master. That`s my job.
I love PDM's reviews, always fun, informative, and most importantly, they illustrate his point of view, which is always great food for thought! Well done, sir, as always!
At the point where you can allocate the racial bonuses freely, you could just as well get rid of the system altogether and just allocate more attribute points / scores or do what I do, just roll the attributes and be done with it. I'm a fan of trimming off any unnecessary rules.
Listening to people who play 5e and Pathfinder sounds like Street Fighter II special moves. "I use my dragon punch, my hurricane kick, then my fireball!" These feats and named abilities, in my opinion, allow for the players to completely avoid role playing or being creative and thinking about solutions to problems that don't involve beating something to death.
That's solid advice in cautioning DMs against giving players extra turns. My players are slow enough just running their own characters, they really don't need more allies to control. Love the suggestion on running allies where you just pretend roll and make something up. That sounds like the most reasonable option in a lot of scenarios.
I wish they would introduce a system with tats like in Planescape Torment where they could be removed, put on different parts of your body, and gave stats bonuses ( or curses that had to be removed especially through an arduous quest).
Finally got and read my copy. A fantastic resource for newer DMs, and enough great ideas for seasoned DMs to warrant the purchase. There are some misses for me, though, particularly with the subclasses and feats (though 5e's feats are generally garbage anyway). I will always be on board with Planescape references, though (an illustration in the Patrons chapter).
Hello profesor, i am a new aspiring Dm in Mexico. This is virtualy unheard of were i am from so all i have been able to do is gather info and basicaly, i have no players yet. I must say i have learned the most from your videos. I just got hold of some dice so plus one to My Dm class yayy! I dont own any books, its not easy to buy them here so channels like this are Gold.
Thank you for the review , and your insights , l used to game in high school and college. Putting away her Christmas Decorations last year my ex wife found all my old DnD stuff. During the pandemic , l started DM duties for my kids and a few of thier friends . How my daughter and l paint minis , thank you Sword n Steele ,. Craft alot of terrain than you Wyloch, you are really super helpful and l wanted to say thank you. My kids and l have alot more common ground and quality time now.
I feel bad. I normally have a quibble or a niggling issue with one of your contentions. You pretty much perfectly summed up my thoughts on the entire book and more importantly on the way the hobby is going. I am jealous I did not come up with RPG Singularity. I think it is something to watch out for.
Basically, it seems like a tool book for your campaign as a DM. I am not the a fan of the race singularity because at that point, everyone is a human which takes from Lord of the RIngs to Game of throne only that no one dies. Also, with side kicks and pets, you go from intrepid explorers to roaming mob where a drink order becomes a single game session before getting dinner which can be 2 to three sessions..... Sometimes, to many options is worse than to few. Personally, I rather see more of the 80's type modules with the ability to string them together to make a campaign.
@@malcolmrowe9003 You are probably more right, but a good DM should adjust the encounter to match the party. Plus, in the old day, buddies were called NPCs.
I mean, on the one hand, I don't like that they encourage all custom races to be reskinned VHumans. On the other hand, I have seen _so_ _many_ ludicrously overpowered custom races that I can see why they did it that way. It's a convenient excuse that a DM can use if a player is trying to push imbalanced homebrew on them: "Sure, you can play [Custom Race X], just use this rule for making it." That could potentially save a lot of argument. Personally, though, I find races fairly straightforward to balance. Classes and subclasses are much more tricky. I do like that we have floating ASIs as an option now. It's going to make a lot of previously underplayed race/class combinations much more appealing, so we'll probably be seeing more variety with that than before.
Personally I wouldn't mind removing rules entirely... There's no basis for the players but just like theater of the mind, you don't need the rules to play
@@donaldking5791 I got enough with to do without this turning into adnd where you have 5 helpers to poke for traps, disarm traps, carry your gold, and one to heal in case the cleric dies...
To comment on your statement regarding the Twilight and Peace Cleric. Yes they are op, Something my dm does as well as me when I dm. We make the encounters really tough. That off sets the op nature of the player classes. If the players have to burn through their class features in a fight that means they are going to have a harder time later down the dungeon.
As per everyone else, excellent video. The book introduces stuff that you have already discussed, good and bad. Most of the stuff I'm interested in I already do at my table, so that's inspiring. Again, PDM, thanks for the insight. "Flying off the handle...", nyuck nyuck nyuck. 😂
Personally, I find it easier to build encounters when I know the characters will be at full health when they start out after a short rest. Crank up the CR and let the damage dice fly. My players know that I have no problem killing their characters or pets. Ask my wife and daughter.
Ah, every party is made of amorphous blobs with lengthy and cute backstories. Everyone is an eldritch something or other and the game is combat encounters followed immediately by 8 hour naps....sounds so fun.
Personally... I'm feeling like removing full healing on long rests... Our maybe making long rests truly only happen at inns or such. Places you can get a full night's rest without worrying about monsters
As a player I thought it was neat to customize my character's stats/abilities with Tasha's, but there is a part of me that doesn't like the fact that everything just becomes the best thing it could be without the trade-offs. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, like you said, but it just makes everything seem kind of the same. World-building thru game mechanics, it's all just mush. The rest of it sounds good. I had a cleric with the Chef feat, it was nice to dole out more healing. And in a game we had a twilight domain cleric, and that thing is pretty OP for healing just granting tons of temp hit points during major combats.
On the 3/2/2/1/0/-1 stat bonus array: Man, I wish they would just relegate the 3-18 scores to an optional rule and use the modifiers as the stats. It would eliminate one of the hurdles for new players, reduce the number of numbers on a character sheet or stat block, and generally streamline the way people think about the game. Sidekicks: I would have liked to see sidekick actions as a PC bonus action, rather than the sidekick acting on its own. This would keep the existing action economy but allow a player to broaden their number of options per turn. Alternatively, I think it would have been interesting to see sidekicks used as a testbed for radically simpler PC class designs akin to what Matt Colville did with Followers. The sidekicks presented seem only incrementally simpler than the standard classes but could have been a great place to introduce and test new mechanics with different core design principles since they don't need to be balanced against existing PC classes.
It used to be that an Ability Check was a roll equal to or under your Ability Score on a d20, with some sort of modifier perhaps. Challenges were roll highest, whilst keeping under your Ability. Some of us might still play that way, none of that DC XX nonsense... ;-)
@@FrostSpike I started playing with Moldvay, which I believe includes a roll-under ability check. I certainly used the roll-under check a lot when playing 2nd Ed since that was the core of the skill system. However, it's difficult to argue that roll-under, like descending AC and saving throws, isn't somewhat counterintuitive in a game in which, generally, the player wants to have higher numbers on their sheet and on their dice. It's simpler, more consistent, and creates one less hurdle for new players to overcome. After all, greybeards like you and I are already playing D&D; the game doesn't need to try to attract us to the hobby. The game already undergone changes when I started playing, it has been through several iterations since then, and it will continue to change in the future. We shouldn't be afraid of change; if nothing ever changed, we'd still be part of the British Empire.
5:41 re: swapping racial abilities and bonuses, we started doing this back in 4e. We came into it late and by then there was a well-defined "min-max meta" online. So anyone looking for info on what class they might want to play would be running right into that info. Rather than ignore it, we embraced it and erased it by saying "you can pick whatever racial profile you want for your class and just be whatever race you want to be". Which fed into our 4e campaign being a party made up entirely of Dwarves, I don't remember all the classes present at the table now, as some of the players did much less RP than others so they didn't stick in my mind. But I do remember had a Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, and a Theif. (So there must have been some kind of healer in there too, probably some kind of Cleric. In fact, I'm pretty sure the DM auto included that as an NPC so we could just pick anything else, and healing was already covered, and he could filter feed us tasks from the church, haha). Anyhow full Dwarf party and it was glorious. They would plunder dungeons for riches and then blow it all when they got back to town. Massives feasts, best rooms in the Inn, a wagon, and piles of supplies to take out with them for extended trips 'there and back again' so they could do it all over and over. You'd think we got XPs for gold spent, but that was all just done in fun. ;-)
Everybody who plays DnD now gets a trophy. I understand what this would be appealing. But like the Professor, I like quirky and different. If everything is the same then we miss out on the unique.
@@gazelle_diamond9768 YES! Not every encounter you meet should be "level-appropriate" to the PCs outright. The OSR games where every class advanced at a different rate were far better at challenging a party because of the imbalance in them. As a result, you had modules where it said for levels 3 to 5 on the cover. Why? Because a 4th level Magic-user was as powerful as a 5th Level Fighter back in the day.
I would definitely simplify pets, companions, and helpful spirits by taking away any separate actions they have, and just have them apply bonuses to actions the players take. Also, I wish there were fewer books of these ala cart specific options, and more DM recipe books which show you how to build a companion, or an item, or a spell. Give DMs a framework for empowering their creativity and their players', and knock it off with these $30-$50 menus that you have to dig through and figure out what of these specific things offered am I going to allow in my game, because I'm afraid the other stuff is going to slow us down, or make PCs too powerful.
The Chef skill reminds me of the cooking mechanic in Tales of Symphonia. Each character had a max proficiency, which they reached by cooking, and there were various recipes, requiring ingredients you could get from opponents or from cities, where availability varied. And the better the meal, the more benefit everyone received. I'd love to see something like that for a ttrpg, if maybe a little more stream-lined. Hmmm, maybe I have a new project...
Fun review. I always enjoy your stuff, glad I found you. I have similar thoughts on a lot of your perspectives. I love being the DM and appreciate your perspective from the DM side of things vs players side.
I feel like I agree about the healing on the new subclasses being to beefed up, and I’ll probably end up needing those aspects if someone wants to play them. As a note though I think if my players want to have a healer, and a character with the cook feat, and they’re seeking out healing potions or other magic items that heal I’d take that as a note as the dm. Maybe they just are too afraid of character death or maybe they’re trying to tell you as a dm that the fights are to hard, and they go to long between long rests, and the campaign keeps killing people off. TLDR: if the party is grasping at all the healing they can get it may be because you had a deadlier game in mind than they did after session zero talks and now that they’re in game they are trying to change it. Talk with them.
Nice quote about clerics, but in this 5E edition, no one can convince me about the strongest class being the paladin, i mean, its not a thing that need discussions, it's only a personal opinion.
My issue with Customizing You Origin and moving races ability score increases is that there are other features of races which are balanced with the ability scores. I know there's always the roleplaying flag, where you'll play a race/class combo because you're after the RPing experience with the combo; but there's still mechanical affects to take into consideration. Especially if the DM has a "competitive" table where they players want PCs to seem "fair" when compared to each other. e.g. TCoE allows me to roll a Tortle Wizard with +2 INT and +1 CON...and a based unarmoured AC of 17. As Tortles used ability scores used to be STR+2 and WIS+1 this previously biased them to classes which already have armour proficencies, so the AC 17 wasn't as big a deal. TCoE "break" this balance imo. Without this rule, you can still roll a Tortle Wizard, but it will take longer to match a wizard of a race more suited to the arcane...and that's OK imo. It actually makes the Tortle wizard feel like they accoplish more when they cap their INT (probably at level 8 instead of potentially level for for a race with an INT bonus). Races with big ability bumps, like Mountain Dwarves have a similar issue IMO. However, I enjoy "true" point buy systems (e.g. Hero System or WoD). What TCoE does is a messy "middle ground" where part of racial abilities score bonuses have become fluid, but others features remain static; resulting in imbalance imo.
I was interested to hear your take. Loved your humour about it! I purchased the hobby store edition out of habit/completionism but ultimately I regret the purchase. I think I am done with 5e. I’m sticking with Dungeon World.
After viewing all of the comments I think that Professor Dungeonmaster's point is correct in that Tasha's is a buffet and that one should take only what he or she wants. However, DM's beware, if a player mentions this book during their character development you might want to do some homework...I think that increasing diversity across classes and races is OK in moderation but not to the point where all races and classes are treated the same.
Agreed. I outlawed Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in my campaign, even though they're in the PHB, because I feel fighters and rogues should not be spellcasters. Use the rules that work for you, and don't use the ones that don't.
1. All tool-based feats ought to be unlockable through downtime training. 2. Every tool ought to have an associated feat. 3. Tool feats should have a mastery level, where the character can turn specific raw materials into amazing stuff. Master cooks can make monster meals that pass on resistances or special one-time attacks; master poisoners can extract special venoms; master calligraphers can mimic signatures on sight and scribble off binding legal documents as an action.
I beg to differ. Mountain Dwarf gives our lovely wizards medium armor and +2 Con/Int for free. That is not a matter of just stats anymore, it delivers mechanics that are not available without any tradeoff otherwise. Custom Lineage race, I'm all for it, it's clean and works great. Overall, Tasha's is OK.. "You can switch subclasses and talk with your players"? I don't need to spend €50 to know that. Xanathar's is much more useful for DM's.
Nice backdrop wall Professor, what size ballpoint did you have to use to score those lines? Deathbringer, lookin sharp as always. Your review was entertaining and informative as always. More options for players just provides more headaches for DM's as they wheedle you to death looking to use that one game breaking option. Also agree wholeheartedly regarding the game singularity. Cookie for the metric.
I smell influences from PDM and Runehammer in Tasha's Oversized Pot. Deathbringer: What did the goblin mother say to the goblin necromancer? "Don't play with your dinner until after you've eaten it, bonehead!"
Feels like it's trying to make D&D feel closer to the video game experience. More bonuses, more abilities at the cost of... nothing. Back in my day, races had bonuses and penalties to their traits. Felt more balanced. An illusion? Maybe. The puzzles and descriptions could be useful though. Thank you for another fantastic video.
Good review. I haven't looked at 5e yet, other than a quick flip through of the Essentials. I got very turned off at 3.5 and it got worse at 4thE. Each to their own taste I guess. The later editions feel too video gamey to me. Again no shade intended, just not my cup of tea.
Great source of flavor and DM tools, terrible source of PC facing mechanical tools. I HAD to eyeroll at the sidekick section. Use Matt Colville NPC mechanics if you really want your players to have an additional character to control. All these rules are listed as "optional" because they know some could be game breaking and they don't want to actually be responsible for testing game balance. It's like when did WotC stop filtering out their ideas based on game performance? If i wanted a bunch of game breaking additions to have to sift through to find the ones that aren't I'd use homebrew boards.
I can definitely see the GM appeal to this book. Its got random roll tables in it! Who can resist their temptations 🤣 its great they've taken some positive steps in this book to try and change up 5e but surely it would be easier to work on 6e rather than add bloat to 5e.
Bard is the MOST BROKEN class in the game, magical secrets allows them to combine spells that where never ever meant to be combined for truly truly BROKEN combinations. I have very little love or patience with 5e and this book is no exception a 5 out of 10 from me. I mean Artificers are you serious just play a different game, and all the races the same what's the point? Lastly everyone gets to see in the dark how very stupid and immersion breaking, bring back infravision.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Take 1 Hexblade/19 Lore Bard, take Elven Accuracy feat +1 CHA, take +2 CHA and Crossbow Master feat and use hand crossbow. Take the following spells: Simulacrum, Tenser Transformation, Haste, Find Greter Steed + Have Armor of Agathys upcasted if you really want. Sit on Pegasus with Plate barding, cast Tenser Transformation. Your Simulacrum casts Haste on you. Now you do 4x attachs wit 3xd20 roll per attack, dealing 2d12 force damage extra per attack, your Pegasus (becasue Steed shares Self spells) is now attacking 3x with advantage with extra 2d12 force damage. Pegasus has 20 AC. You also have like 200 feet movement speed. AoA make every enemy that hits you (or Pegasus) in melee take 20-45 cold damage + you have no penalty in shooting hand crossbow in melee. With Curse from Hexblade on target you also crit on 19-20, which means you will crit for 2d6 + 4d12 per attack and Pegasus for even more. You also attack from Charisma because you are Hexblade. Easy 150 + Damage Per Turn. For Maximum damage let your Simulacrum get on his Pegasus, cast Tenser too and now you have two of them combine of 6x (1d6 + 2d12+ 5 + 6 from Curse) + 2x Pegasuses attacking 4 times total with extra 2d12 damage. Easy 270+ Damage Per Turn. Add Sharpshooter feat if you are mean to your DM and scale that to 200+ and 400+ dmg per turn.
I believe that the root cause (or at least a contributing factor) behind the WOTC D&D games is the number of player options -- I am tired of saying this, so no more on it here. Although the DM tools and canned fluff seem useful, a lot of players are going to own the book so there that goes. The solution to all of these problems is simply to stop buying D&D books, and start reading more fantasy literature in which all kinds of ideas for characters, settings, adventures exist. analysis of the authors techniques -- even of something like 'The DaVinci Chronicle," which is not even fantasy can show you how to structure an adventure so that it builds toward a climax, piece by piece. If you need puzzles, just get a little puzzle or brain teaser book and re-skin the fluff for your fantasy theme.
As a guy who uses only a few of the 5e rules, this is a little foreign. I do cringe a bit at all the races, classes and subclasses. Seems to complex to keep track of. Interesting ending statement on clerics, which was my favorite class when I got to play (and not just DM). Since I still use most of the old school rules, only some of my clerics have healing abilities. My healing ethos cleric has serious weapon and armor restrictions (ie net, staff and NO armor) but they are great healers with numerous innate healing abilities. I have yet to have a player want to roll one though. War clerics have great combat abilities but limited spells and no turning in my world. I think that balances things out and makes the cleric an interesting class to play, but not better than a thief or mage. Furthermore, different types of clerics are just that, different but not better than the other styles.
I think healing is so plentiful that clerics aren’t needed as a healer class. Everyone has hit die that are able to be used if they survive the encounter, which is likely because CR is broken too. Most sessions are more episodic and narrative so there is basically a single encounter per gaming session. With players using hit dice at the end.
"A raceless classless point buy system where everyone is a spell caster and nobody dies." ^ You don't have to threaten me with a good time. I'm already sold.
The entire reason for the flexibility of Racial features and ASI is because of the branching out of worlds from the Forgotten Realms. If you've noticed, WotC has been pumping out sourcebooks for other settings (Eberron, MTG, etc) and the races there are a little different vs Forgotten Realms. My biggest gripe here are summons. They bog down the game by a lot since everything has multiple attacks and stuff. It feels like spellcasters get buffed with every new source book, and spellcasters have a tendency to break the game. But as Prof DM says, it's all optional, and you can always tell a player no. Good stuff!
"I'm gonna start at the back of the book and work my way to the start"
10 seconds later: "The cover art is great"
It has a back cover, doesn’t it?
😅😂🤣
Next Wizards book is DEATHBRINGERS Takeover of Everything.
I can't wait for that one.
I had a character with a spider familiar. His name was Gary. Wanted to be a web designer.
+100xp for that one.
[roll snare drum]
People have been brutally and deservedly murdered for that sort of pun.
This joke is dad approved.
Not Jeff? ruclips.net/video/E4xSSLWrm4A/видео.html
3 out of 4 cauldrons. Good to see that while the Professor doesn't review products he doesn't like, that won't stop him from saying what he thinks.
Love that you took a moment to highlight and appreciate the art of the book for the public, the artist usually don't see much love in these reviews because the main focus is the technical side of the content, your review instead, was simple and easy to follow.
The special edition of this book easily ranks as my least favorite of all the special editions for 5e unfortunately though; it's just boring.
I wonder if the days of fear and loathing in DnD in gone. Back when we started, death was always potentially 1 roll away and it had multiple vectors to approach the players. Hit point loss, level drains, ability drains, and instant death effects meant that players approach combat much more cautiously. We were just as likely to avoid combat as enter into it, precisely because of the risks involved. I feel like that's been lost over time, and I think the game is a little poorer for it.
Like with video game RPGs, just played FF1 remastered and it's classic RPG. Exploring, needing resources, camping, needing to go back to town... But many RPGs have headache free "turn random encounters off" or such... These games are still fun but they lack that tension ff1 had of me going through a dungeon and wondering: am I gonna be able to get out of here and use a tent to rest? Will I be able to make it back to town? I'm running out of potions and I'm out of undead wiping dia magic...
That tension is sadly just gone
I don't know that it's often enough emphasized the people can play the game/edition they prefer to play. I think friction happens when the DM doesn't communicate expectations players/vice versa.
It was a bit too shitty for me back then - but as an onlooker not a player these days, the game seems to have become rather under-shitty.
Plus, as the Prof notes, every character seems to be able to do a little of everything now, if the player wants that. I prefer smallish menus of tough choices - 'If you want to be/do X, then Y is off the table.'
@@notreallydavid I have always called myself a mean DM and I stand by that, but I like letting players get all the abilities they want. I think original DND was a little too specialized in terms of who could do what, with the notable exception that clerics have been broken from the start. (full plate + significant spellcasting and more hit points/better THAC0 than a rogue, I rest my case.) and much like old video game RPGs if you want your character to be able to do it all a little bit why not?
I am annoyed by many of the mechanics now, the removal of truly dangerous traps, how neutered Tomb of Annihilation and Acererack was compared to it's "spiritual predecessor" Tomb of Horrors, the prevalence of darkvision and spell type immunity, and most of all the stats are whatever you feel like because of what it means for the world. The average 25 pound kobold and the average 400 pound minotaur now have the same strength, and also cap at the same strength. That's idiotic, but as much as that annoys me I'd have allowed it on an individual basis in my games if the player had approached me with it and a compelling background related reason why. I had a character playing a winged elf child who had a 20 strength, but her background was that, desperate to help her adopted family, she had been led astray by a warlock and made a pact with his patron, a being whose core philosophy is "Sacrifice what you treasure most to gain what you should not have." She sacrificed her flight for unnatural strength.
All that being said, I have no problems making 5e deadly. I warn my players going in and it tends to play out that way. No amount of carebear supplements and core rules can overcome a modicum of DM preparation and intent in terms of the tone and feel of the world you want to create.
@@plagueofjoe This is a great reply, p. Have a cake, and all best.
This book is nifty, but it sure as hell is a great argument for the OSR.
All of 5e is a great argument for the OSR. :)
This is the way
@@Chefrabbitfoot This is the way.
@solomani I agree. I have adopted the Five Torches Deep system (which uses the 5e mechanics but scales it to OSR) and my players are still ambivalent about it after 2 sessions. There's no Street Fighter II-esque "special moves" like in standard 5e, but there are buffs when the characters go up in level. Something to check out. PDM did a review of it a while back.
@@johnsmith3085 I keep wanting to like Five Torches Deep, or Runehammer's Hardcore Mode, but they both feel kind of clunky to me. "Fixing" a game to be something it's not. On the other hand, I find OSE (Basic D&D) mechanically boring -though GREAT procedures for running the game, and nice clean rules. I added a system of Talents (kind of Feats or Perks) that have the feel of the "Street Fighter" moves, but keeps everything at a fast and dangerous level of play.
Absolutely agree. Much of Tasha’s accelerates the power creep already inherent in 5e’s resource management. For me 5e vanilla is fundamentally broken and needs heavy house ruling to run any type of exploration/resource management game.
I bought Tasha’s but am actively looking for another system, and currently looking into Forbidden Lands and Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Have you looked at Five Torches Deep?
Thank you for approaching this from a DM perspective. So sick of every review being about classes, subclasses, feats and other player crunch and glossing over DM utility. It's like the early days of 3.0 over again with feats and prestige classes ad nauseum
Time is a flat circle.
I feel like that’s because there are going to be 4-6 players to geek out over something for every 1 dm.
Feats helped with small groups and added some interest but they were a bit much, especially as they leveled up and become super-sayan.
PDM has excellent perspective and commands the language to express it. He really nails it over and over. Personally, I like it when a player
has a character in mind, picks feats or whatever to fit that role and plays a cool game rather than "maximize damage" or something technical.
So the elaborate prestige classes could be a boon for the right players to add some sense of feeling but it seemed like mostly I had players
building some kind of death machine that by 6th level achieved a glorious multi attack that reminded me of a video game more than a RPG.
@@oldschoolplayer1632 is that Nietzsche or some shit?
@@QeepingItReal Nietzsche’s Idea of Eternal Recurrence.
The power creep is real.
Seems so.
We are still nowhere to the power creep of 3E. :)
6 years into this edition and the most powerful stuff out there is still the PHB paladin. ;)
@@havasigabor9986 just google 5e infinite damage loop
@@havasigabor9986 you mean BERSERKER
Short and sweet review, nice! I dig it... Also, kudos on starting at the back of the book... jumped right into the hidden gems of Tasha's for sure. Well done!
But man like literally everywhere.
Thanks, Wally.
@@chrisk3824 I'm a fan of a lot of D&D RUclipsrs. You are too evidently, lol. Good to see ya again. Hmmm... where will I show up next. Let's see... Cheers friend!
Haha nice. Young DMs need to learn this - "Put the Master in Dungeon Master and tell them NO."
Holy crap the facebook 5e groups hate that advice. lol
See you can say 'We are playing (system here)' but in the end it is the DMs game. No is allways am option. I perfer 'yes but' answers but sometimes...
There is a time and place for everything. I like to give my players a lot of freedom, but now and then it does come time to shut them down on something. It isn't too often, so generally I don't get a ton of pushback about it. Usually it boils down to "I have to draw a line SOMEWHERE." Give them slack. But don't let go of the reins.
I've never told a player outright no except once, when he came to me with a 3.5 race mix that included 3 "halfs". I once had to tell a player who made a pathfinder character focusing around magic missiles that he'd feated/metamagic'd up to do approximately 50 damage a round that his character was a math problem and a very easy one to solve, you're not going to have easy encounters just because he's powerful, so if that character is going to be fun for you to play go for it, but otherwise you're barely even rolling any dice. He decided not to play it. Most of the time I just have to made it clear the things that I think create issues and why, such as early level flight is an issue because characters with flight are either in horrific danger (drop to 0 in mid air and then take falling damage and you're dead) or no danger at all (no ranged attacks from enemies) in every encounter and that steers them away. The most irritating thing to me is just monster races because their backstories are usually nonsensical or unreasonably difficult to work into the story, they don't fit my world, and players like to ignore the warnings and get frustrated when religious and superstitious townsfolk don't want their bugbear or tiefling or kobold around.
Rambling aside, I'll generally give players whatever they want, but the difficulty scales up with their power, and I'm not cutting them any slack if they ignore my warnings and press for dumb things that don't fit or create scenarios they weren't prepared for.
You should make a book called “DeathBringer”. The reason why is that name is perfect style of what you are talking. The book will answer one question, How to make death lurk around every corner without alway killing your party every time.” You always seem to hint at this theme. Almost like you have a brewing secret, But struggle to explain it, or won’t for complication reasons. I for one would love to see a DeathBringer book. - loved the review for me it’s to much, at some point all that stuff of buffing characters gets in the way of actual story telling when I DM. I want to concentrate on building in-depth stories that emotionally binds you to the game, not statistical mayhem.
What a great idea - I hope he takes this to heart and does something with it.
It's a juggling act. You have to figure out your strengths and lean into them.
@@zeterzero4356 Exactly. As a DM of 30+ years this is what I think about and try to master the most. I think my current players (a new group as I just moved) aren't afraid enough. My old group who included a few who had suffered through my truly cruel DMing as a teenager were on the opposite end of the spectrum. Balance is tough.
Playing with 6-8 people sounds like a nightmare! I have always played with 3-5 people, DM included, so for me sidekicks are a fantastic way to build up a party
There were always semi-official ways to beat the level limits in earlier editions. For example, the Grove of Meditation in Synnoria on Gwynneth in the Moonshae Isles (Forgotten Realms, Faerun). If an elven mage (or fighter/MU) of sufficient Intelligence had sufficient XP to level up beyond their limits, and meditated in the Grove for 1d6 months, they could advance that extra level. Made for interesting pilgrimages to these sorts of locations, or quests for arcane/divine favour, for these extraordinary level bumps.
On retconning charicter classes...
"Boot's was always a bard."
I've actually spoken about this with my DM before the release of Tasha's. The obvious ones being a change to Cleric, Warlock or Paladin. There are ways to RP other class changes but relinquishing your power to a powerful entity for the promise of a different power makes sense to me. I've even spoken to my DM about the possibility of reviving a dead PC as one of those classes (it might seem a bit cheesy but it makes sense to do it that way, if at all)
Boots has always been evil!
What was Boots' original class? Was it Swashbuckler or something? I don't remember them ever mentioning it
@@cajbajthewhite4889 Yes, it was some kind of homebrew. Pretty sure it was a rogue sub-class, but it may have been it's own thing with those swash points or whatever they where called...
Wait, no I meant to say he was always a Bard... Please no not the rats!
The Player's Handbook II from the 3.x days actually had optional rules for changing the class of previous levels. There's already a rule that you can swap out one thing every level (a feat, 4 ranks in a skill, a single spell if you're a sorcerer or bard, that kind of thing). We decided that this should be doable but special circumstances would be required, it had to be 'big deal" and explained in-universe. Basically I had a character that wanted to be an Arcane Trickster that had started out as a level 1 bard then switched to wizard, then rogue. With a lot of in-universe effort on the part of the character, that 1 level of bard was swapped with 1 level of wizard making the character qualify to become an arcane trickster a level sooner.
We chose to see it not as a retcon but as a focusing hard one one skill set while another atrophied. Many skills are perishable in real life after all.
"The Rules are optional." First rule of running any game. If you don't like it, change it
That's great but as a dm that usually works with new players i now have to tell them that their custom made pc isn't acceptable. I know it's not that big a deal but it just sucks you know. It's not fun being told no.
@@Bear-bx7yo That does and I can relate. I solved that by being part of the character creation process.
@@marklaurenzi1609 oh I do run a session 0 for all my campaigns. But I find most players already have a character they wanna play when they show up. Most don't build there concept at the table.
@@Bear-bx7yo Don't let them.
@@marklaurenzi1609 Good luck stoping them! They may have rolled up the character before your campaign was even a concept!
Personally, when I play, I like to have a handfull of pre-made characters, and use whichever one would best fit with the campaign the D.M. wants to run.
As always, great review.
I personally hate when my players get pets and things like that, because that means more work for me, work that most of the party will not enjoy:
Player: I give my dog a pat
GM: Please don't make me think nor roleplay the dog's reaction...
I am surprised you didn't mention Rune Knight. He is absolutely awesome subclass that allow Fighter to do multiple stuff during his turn and now Fighter have access to one of the most powerfull feature in game: Storm Rune
Main reason we play 2nd ed. limitations make imaginations work better!
Hell yeah! Starting a 2nd edition game next month myself
Agree.
Agreed
Sometimes less really is more.
Like they say: "Only the master shows himself in the limitation."
The art Is always inspirational in these books. Yet the writers are still on the mission to change players into medieval super heroes
I think the racial bonuses outside of stat improvements are enough to make each race feel and perform differently. The stat bonuses IMO, should be linked to class, if linked to anything at all. If you're a Barbarian, you've been training your strength. It doesn't matter if you're a gnome or a human; if you've spent the time in physical training, you should see a strength improvement: +2 to strength for every Barbarian. If you're a Wizard, you've been studying/reading for years: +2 Intelligence. It's less about the racial aptitude and more about where you spend your time, which is, if anything more akin to real life than simply being born into higher strength, which if you don't harness, withers. It works both in terms of realism, and in terms of in-game logic, and overall it means you can create much more interesting combinations of races/classes without feeling like you're being punished for being flavourful.
This was also my thinking. Each of the races get enough features, for the most part, to where replacing ability scores and such doesn't really compromise their identity so much as allow the player to define their own.
As a DM I would be pretty hesitant to allow players to use the custom lineage system. It dilutes the significance of being a race. A player could certainly pitch their character concept to me but I would challenge them on their position before making a decision.
Honestly, that "RPG Singularity" sounds like the absolute worst thing for Dungeons and Dragons. It takes all the flavor out of the different races, and if all the races are basically human... Why are there other races?
erhm, roleplaying? I mean it's literally a role playing game, i have a first generation tiefling, offspring of human female and male cambion, who's looking to trace his demonic heritage. As such he's a demon summoner. Functionally, the stats and numbers really don't matter here. His looks, views and history do. Dnd is so much more than numbers. For me the charisma bump worked out, but if i could've taken +2 in int i would've and it wouldn't have made my character less special to me.
@@ImmortaL0Shadow i understand but the numbers should be a representation of the character, the adition to te races was unnesesary, they stop feeling diferent or special becoming only a skin for the character. if you want for exaple a tifling warrior just put the high scores on streng and constitution, this adition is unnecesary
@@elhoteldeloserrantes5056 i disagree. For the minmaxer, race is just the bonuses. So every fighter is a str/con hybrid, every wizard int, every rogue dex,... And they choose the race that has those stats.
For rp people, they choose a character and fill out the stats afterwards, but that makes some combinations inherently worse than others, hampering creativity.
On the other side, a wizard with bad int might also have some fun roleplay moments, but it's just such a disadvantage that for most, it's not worth it.
If you give people the freedom, minmaxers will keep optimizing the fun out of the game as they always have, and rp'ers will keep making interesting characters. IMO it just provides more options.
Tofu is extremely healthy to eat, so why not eat only it?
Because flavor is important and I like a variety.
Yes I am hungry right now and can't decide what to eat.
@@ImmortaL0Shadow also this the only people that really care about numbers are munchkins.
"Put the Master in Dungeon Master"
Love it.
My thoughts is this book is aimed at new players that don't know you can homebrew and Adventures League players that are frustrated with the limitations.
Yea, that's all and good about putting the Master in Dungeon Master, but I'm going to take the Player out of Player Character and walk away if this is the attitude you take.
@@bloodyirishman9155 wont be missed lol
I don`t get it. My PCs take the Actions I allow them to take ( "the chasm is to big to jump over" aka No), meet the NPCs I put in the world and have the magic items I let them find. If they throw to much fireballs my bad guys will get fire resistance, if the fighters dish to much punishment out ...make a Wisdom saving throw...
I am the dungeon master. That`s my job.
@@TheAlwaysPrepared Many of the problems people ascribe to the system, more often than not, are of their own creation.
@@cryw1092 That statement transcends DnD :)
I love PDM's reviews, always fun, informative, and most importantly, they illustrate his point of view, which is always great food for thought! Well done, sir, as always!
When I saw the regional haunted/otherworldly effects in the back of the book I immediately knew PDM would love that section
I love that you mentioned the Dungeon Dudes! They actually led me to your channel. Thanks for the great content.
At the point where you can allocate the racial bonuses freely, you could just as well get rid of the system altogether and just allocate more attribute points / scores or do what I do, just roll the attributes and be done with it. I'm a fan of trimming off any unnecessary rules.
Listening to people who play 5e and Pathfinder sounds like Street Fighter II special moves. "I use my dragon punch, my hurricane kick, then my fireball!" These feats and named abilities, in my opinion, allow for the players to completely avoid role playing or being creative and thinking about solutions to problems that don't involve beating something to death.
Brilliant observation. Can I steal it for a future episode?
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Of course! Just please shout me out! Love your stuff and proud to be a patron!
rpg singularity... when we are all the same because we are all different
Conformist unconformity.
That's solid advice in cautioning DMs against giving players extra turns. My players are slow enough just running their own characters, they really don't need more allies to control. Love the suggestion on running allies where you just pretend roll and make something up. That sounds like the most reasonable option in a lot of scenarios.
I wish they would introduce a system with tats like in Planescape Torment where they could be removed, put on different parts of your body, and gave stats bonuses ( or curses that had to be removed especially through an arduous quest).
Finally got and read my copy. A fantastic resource for newer DMs, and enough great ideas for seasoned DMs to warrant the purchase. There are some misses for me, though, particularly with the subclasses and feats (though 5e's feats are generally garbage anyway).
I will always be on board with Planescape references, though (an illustration in the Patrons chapter).
I also loved the puzzle section- noticed so many criticizing it, so I am happy to see I’m not the only one that likes it!
1 point on a D20 is 5% which is the definition of scientifically significant. That’s per roll let alone over the career of a character. Just saying..
Yeah, that was a really odd thing for him to say.
Hello profesor, i am a new aspiring Dm in Mexico. This is virtualy unheard of were i am from so all i have been able to do is gather info and basicaly, i have no players yet. I must say i have learned the most from your videos. I just got hold of some dice so plus one to My Dm class yayy! I dont own any books, its not easy to buy them here so channels like this are Gold.
Thank you for the review , and your insights , l used to game in high school and college. Putting away her Christmas Decorations last year my ex wife found all my old DnD stuff. During the pandemic , l started DM duties for my kids and a few of thier friends . How my daughter and l paint minis , thank you Sword n Steele ,. Craft alot of terrain than you Wyloch, you are really super helpful and l wanted to say thank you. My kids and l have alot more common ground and quality time now.
I feel bad. I normally have a quibble or a niggling issue with one of your contentions. You pretty much perfectly summed up my thoughts on the entire book and more importantly on the way the hobby is going. I am jealous I did not come up with RPG Singularity. I think it is something to watch out for.
Basically, it seems like a tool book for your campaign as a DM. I am not the a fan of the race singularity because at that point, everyone is a human which takes from Lord of the RIngs to Game of throne only that no one dies. Also, with side kicks and pets, you go from intrepid explorers to roaming mob where a drink order becomes a single game session before getting dinner which can be 2 to three sessions..... Sometimes, to many options is worse than to few. Personally, I rather see more of the 80's type modules with the ability to string them together to make a campaign.
I thought the point of sidekicks was to bolster a small party of 1 or 2 (just possibly 3) players, not to turn a decent size party into a small army.
@@malcolmrowe9003 You are probably more right, but a good DM should adjust the encounter to match the party. Plus, in the old day, buddies were called NPCs.
I mean, on the one hand, I don't like that they encourage all custom races to be reskinned VHumans. On the other hand, I have seen _so_ _many_ ludicrously overpowered custom races that I can see why they did it that way. It's a convenient excuse that a DM can use if a player is trying to push imbalanced homebrew on them: "Sure, you can play [Custom Race X], just use this rule for making it." That could potentially save a lot of argument. Personally, though, I find races fairly straightforward to balance. Classes and subclasses are much more tricky.
I do like that we have floating ASIs as an option now. It's going to make a lot of previously underplayed race/class combinations much more appealing, so we'll probably be seeing more variety with that than before.
Personally I wouldn't mind removing rules entirely... There's no basis for the players but just like theater of the mind, you don't need the rules to play
@@donaldking5791 I got enough with to do without this turning into adnd where you have 5 helpers to poke for traps, disarm traps, carry your gold, and one to heal in case the cleric dies...
love the start at the back - find the good stuff - always enjoy hearing you espouse your version/take on D&D - makes me want to get the book
To comment on your statement regarding the Twilight and Peace Cleric.
Yes they are op, Something my dm does as well as me when I dm. We make the encounters really tough. That off sets the op nature of the player classes.
If the players have to burn through their class features in a fight that means they are going to have a harder time later down the dungeon.
Thank you Professor. Another great review.
Thanks for commenting!
I bought this book on a lark. I haven’t had the time to delve into it and I appreciate the Professor’s review.
As per everyone else, excellent video.
The book introduces stuff that you have already discussed, good and bad. Most of the stuff I'm interested in I already do at my table, so that's inspiring.
Again, PDM, thanks for the insight.
"Flying off the handle...", nyuck nyuck nyuck. 😂
Personally, I find it easier to build encounters when I know the characters will be at full health when they start out after a short rest. Crank up the CR and let the damage dice fly.
My players know that I have no problem killing their characters or pets. Ask my wife and daughter.
Extremely Amazing & Outstanding "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything" Review by you Sir, Bravo to you! 👽👽👻👻😉
Glad you enjoyed it. I don't do many WOTC reviews. I thought it was fair.
Don't forget to watch Te Reviled Society this Tuesday!
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 I'll be there for sure. Looking Forward to it. Thx so much 4 the reminder....😀😀
"bomb of peace" ... oh my lord the meme potential.
Ah, every party is made of amorphous blobs with lengthy and cute backstories. Everyone is an eldritch something or other and the game is combat encounters followed immediately by 8 hour naps....sounds so fun.
how do you know how every party is?
Damn, dude... Sorry all your parties suck.
Personally... I'm feeling like removing full healing on long rests... Our maybe making long rests truly only happen at inns or such. Places you can get a full night's rest without worrying about monsters
@@elgatochurro
Back in the day, we only recovered 1 HP per night's rest.
@@vincejester7558 back in your day cats had 5 attacks, most monsters had an insane number of attacks... Players were way too fragile imo
As a player I thought it was neat to customize my character's stats/abilities with Tasha's, but there is a part of me that doesn't like the fact that everything just becomes the best thing it could be without the trade-offs. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, like you said, but it just makes everything seem kind of the same. World-building thru game mechanics, it's all just mush. The rest of it sounds good. I had a cleric with the Chef feat, it was nice to dole out more healing. And in a game we had a twilight domain cleric, and that thing is pretty OP for healing just granting tons of temp hit points during major combats.
I appreciate you taking the time to share. You are beginning to see the Matrix. Check out my "One Secret Every DM Must Know."
Ah! It's nice to see someone start from the back of the book! Too often people focus entirely on the character options.
Thanks. I don't know what made me do that exactly, but I'm glad I did.
On the 3/2/2/1/0/-1 stat bonus array: Man, I wish they would just relegate the 3-18 scores to an optional rule and use the modifiers as the stats. It would eliminate one of the hurdles for new players, reduce the number of numbers on a character sheet or stat block, and generally streamline the way people think about the game.
Sidekicks: I would have liked to see sidekick actions as a PC bonus action, rather than the sidekick acting on its own. This would keep the existing action economy but allow a player to broaden their number of options per turn. Alternatively, I think it would have been interesting to see sidekicks used as a testbed for radically simpler PC class designs akin to what Matt Colville did with Followers. The sidekicks presented seem only incrementally simpler than the standard classes but could have been a great place to introduce and test new mechanics with different core design principles since they don't need to be balanced against existing PC classes.
It used to be that an Ability Check was a roll equal to or under your Ability Score on a d20, with some sort of modifier perhaps. Challenges were roll highest, whilst keeping under your Ability. Some of us might still play that way, none of that DC XX nonsense... ;-)
@@FrostSpike I started playing with Moldvay, which I believe includes a roll-under ability check. I certainly used the roll-under check a lot when playing 2nd Ed since that was the core of the skill system. However, it's difficult to argue that roll-under, like descending AC and saving throws, isn't somewhat counterintuitive in a game in which, generally, the player wants to have higher numbers on their sheet and on their dice. It's simpler, more consistent, and creates one less hurdle for new players to overcome. After all, greybeards like you and I are already playing D&D; the game doesn't need to try to attract us to the hobby. The game already undergone changes when I started playing, it has been through several iterations since then, and it will continue to change in the future. We shouldn't be afraid of change; if nothing ever changed, we'd still be part of the British Empire.
Circle of Spore isn't new.
It was originally printed in Guildmaster guide to Ravnica
5:41 re: swapping racial abilities and bonuses, we started doing this back in 4e.
We came into it late and by then there was a well-defined "min-max meta" online.
So anyone looking for info on what class they might want to play would be running right into that info.
Rather than ignore it, we embraced it and erased it by saying "you can pick whatever racial profile you want for your class and just be whatever race you want to be".
Which fed into our 4e campaign being a party made up entirely of Dwarves,
I don't remember all the classes present at the table now, as some of the players did much less RP than others so they didn't stick in my mind.
But I do remember had a Wizard, Paladin, Ranger, and a Theif.
(So there must have been some kind of healer in there too, probably some kind of Cleric. In fact, I'm pretty sure the DM auto included that as an NPC so we could just pick anything else, and healing was already covered, and he could filter feed us tasks from the church, haha).
Anyhow full Dwarf party and it was glorious.
They would plunder dungeons for riches and then blow it all when they got back to town.
Massives feasts, best rooms in the Inn, a wagon, and piles of supplies to take out with them for extended trips 'there and back again' so they could do it all over and over.
You'd think we got XPs for gold spent, but that was all just done in fun. ;-)
Everybody who plays DnD now gets a trophy. I understand what this would be appealing. But like the Professor, I like quirky and different. If everything is the same then we miss out on the unique.
Asymmetrical balance rules! I hate having everything balanced in a D&D campaign.
It's basically socialism for DnD except instead of wealth redistribution, it's power/ability redistribution.
@@shawnangie1 YEP!
@@swaghauler8334 You want an imbalanced game?
@@gazelle_diamond9768 YES! Not every encounter you meet should be "level-appropriate" to the PCs outright. The OSR games where every class advanced at a different rate were far better at challenging a party because of the imbalance in them. As a result, you had modules where it said for levels 3 to 5 on the cover. Why? Because a 4th level Magic-user was as powerful as a 5th Level Fighter back in the day.
Maaaaaan, Prof.! I was waiting for you to do a review on this one❤ I can always count on you!
I would definitely simplify pets, companions, and helpful spirits by taking away any separate actions they have, and just have them apply bonuses to actions the players take. Also, I wish there were fewer books of these ala cart specific options, and more DM recipe books which show you how to build a companion, or an item, or a spell. Give DMs a framework for empowering their creativity and their players', and knock it off with these $30-$50 menus that you have to dig through and figure out what of these specific things offered am I going to allow in my game, because I'm afraid the other stuff is going to slow us down, or make PCs too powerful.
The Chef skill reminds me of the cooking mechanic in Tales of Symphonia. Each character had a max proficiency, which they reached by cooking, and there were various recipes, requiring ingredients you could get from opponents or from cities, where availability varied. And the better the meal, the more benefit everyone received. I'd love to see something like that for a ttrpg, if maybe a little more stream-lined. Hmmm, maybe I have a new project...
I think that was a pretty fair assessment prof.
Best Review I have seen for this book. It looked good to me and most people don't seem to like it.
Fun review. I always enjoy your stuff, glad I found you. I have similar thoughts on a lot of your perspectives. I love being the DM and appreciate your perspective from the DM side of things vs players side.
I feel like I agree about the healing on the new subclasses being to beefed up, and I’ll probably end up needing those aspects if someone wants to play them. As a note though I think if my players want to have a healer, and a character with the cook feat, and they’re seeking out healing potions or other magic items that heal I’d take that as a note as the dm. Maybe they just are too afraid of character death or maybe they’re trying to tell you as a dm that the fights are to hard, and they go to long between long rests, and the campaign keeps killing people off. TLDR: if the party is grasping at all the healing they can get it may be because you had a deadlier game in mind than they did after session zero talks and now that they’re in game they are trying to change it. Talk with them.
Two words to freak players out...mimic community.
Great stuff as always professor.
Thanks!
Thank you for all you are and all you do.
Honestly Chapter 4 of Tasha's is in my opinion a better DM guide than the DM guide for 5th edition
Nice quote about clerics, but in this 5E edition, no one can convince me about the strongest class being the paladin, i mean, its not a thing that need discussions, it's only a personal opinion.
they surely are on the top shelf.
My issue with Customizing You Origin and moving races ability score increases is that there are other features of races which are balanced with the ability scores. I know there's always the roleplaying flag, where you'll play a race/class combo because you're after the RPing experience with the combo; but there's still mechanical affects to take into consideration. Especially if the DM has a "competitive" table where they players want PCs to seem "fair" when compared to each other. e.g. TCoE allows me to roll a Tortle Wizard with +2 INT and +1 CON...and a based unarmoured AC of 17. As Tortles used ability scores used to be STR+2 and WIS+1 this previously biased them to classes which already have armour proficencies, so the AC 17 wasn't as big a deal. TCoE "break" this balance imo. Without this rule, you can still roll a Tortle Wizard, but it will take longer to match a wizard of a race more suited to the arcane...and that's OK imo. It actually makes the Tortle wizard feel like they accoplish more when they cap their INT (probably at level 8 instead of potentially level for for a race with an INT bonus). Races with big ability bumps, like Mountain Dwarves have a similar issue IMO.
However, I enjoy "true" point buy systems (e.g. Hero System or WoD). What TCoE does is a messy "middle ground" where part of racial abilities score bonuses have become fluid, but others features remain static; resulting in imbalance imo.
Because of Tasha’s everyone should be a mountain dwarf. +2 to both my major stats? + useful proficiencies and resistances?
I was interested to hear your take. Loved your humour about it! I purchased the hobby store edition out of habit/completionism but ultimately I regret the purchase. I think I am done with 5e. I’m sticking with Dungeon World.
Dungeon Craft day is a happy day!
After viewing all of the comments I think that Professor Dungeonmaster's point is correct in that Tasha's is a buffet and that one should take only what he or she wants. However, DM's beware, if a player mentions this book during their character development you might want to do some homework...I think that increasing diversity across classes and races is OK in moderation but not to the point where all races and classes are treated the same.
Agreed. I outlawed Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters in my campaign, even though they're in the PHB, because I feel fighters and rogues should not be spellcasters. Use the rules that work for you, and don't use the ones that don't.
1. All tool-based feats ought to be unlockable through downtime training.
2. Every tool ought to have an associated feat.
3. Tool feats should have a mastery level, where the character can turn specific raw materials into amazing stuff. Master cooks can make monster meals that pass on resistances or special one-time attacks; master poisoners can extract special venoms; master calligraphers can mimic signatures on sight and scribble off binding legal documents as an action.
I beg to differ. Mountain Dwarf gives our lovely wizards medium armor and +2 Con/Int for free. That is not a matter of just stats anymore, it delivers mechanics that are not available without any tradeoff otherwise.
Custom Lineage race, I'm all for it, it's clean and works great.
Overall, Tasha's is OK.. "You can switch subclasses and talk with your players"? I don't need to spend €50 to know that. Xanathar's is much more useful for DM's.
I love how his issue with Peace Cleric is the healing and not Emboldening Bond
Appreciate the work and insight!
Nice backdrop wall Professor, what size ballpoint did you have to use to score those lines? Deathbringer, lookin sharp as always. Your review was entertaining and informative as always. More options for players just provides more headaches for DM's as they wheedle you to death looking to use that one game breaking option. Also agree wholeheartedly regarding the game singularity. Cookie for the metric.
Can't wait till we get a chance to use those puzzles.
Pets, summon things, undead etc. I always have those things do average damage. .
Absolutely.
From your review this looks like a 2/5, not 3/4. I like as well when people are different, I like the new sub classes.
I smell influences from PDM and Runehammer in Tasha's Oversized Pot.
Deathbringer: What did the goblin mother say to the goblin necromancer? "Don't play with your dinner until after you've eaten it, bonehead!"
Sounds like a really cool book
Hope I get it for Christmas
I like to limit places and times for some things. Like resurrection and the like
Feels like it's trying to make D&D feel closer to the video game experience. More bonuses, more abilities at the cost of... nothing.
Back in my day, races had bonuses and penalties to their traits. Felt more balanced. An illusion? Maybe.
The puzzles and descriptions could be useful though. Thank you for another fantastic video.
Good review. I haven't looked at 5e yet, other than a quick flip through of the Essentials. I got very turned off at 3.5 and it got worse at 4thE. Each to their own taste I guess. The later editions feel too video gamey to me. Again no shade intended, just not my cup of tea.
You should give ICRPG a look. There's a free quickstart PDF on DrivethruRPG.com. Search Runehammer.
You can tweak the difficulty level of 5e up without too much effort. Make it play more like 2e.
Great source of flavor and DM tools, terrible source of PC facing mechanical tools. I HAD to eyeroll at the sidekick section. Use Matt Colville NPC mechanics if you really want your players to have an additional character to control. All these rules are listed as "optional" because they know some could be game breaking and they don't want to actually be responsible for testing game balance.
It's like when did WotC stop filtering out their ideas based on game performance? If i wanted a bunch of game breaking additions to have to sift through to find the ones that aren't I'd use homebrew boards.
I want any WotC material to be very vetted and clean. So they can act as a source of truth. Not as a source of "Maybe this?"...
Thank you for the video, I appreciate your videos. Well done.
Swarm character name, Bees Arthur
Me to players - "No Tasha's!" Me behind the scenes - scours Tasha's for all the puzzles.
I can definitely see the GM appeal to this book. Its got random roll tables in it! Who can resist their temptations 🤣 its great they've taken some positive steps in this book to try and change up 5e but surely it would be easier to work on 6e rather than add bloat to 5e.
Thank you
Bard is the MOST BROKEN class in the game, magical secrets allows them to combine spells that where never ever meant to be combined for truly truly BROKEN combinations.
I have very little love or patience with 5e and this book is no exception a 5 out of 10 from me. I mean Artificers are you serious just play a different game, and all the races the same what's the point? Lastly everyone gets to see in the dark how very stupid and immersion breaking, bring back infravision.
Examples? I might make a video about it.
I think that’s intended to be the point of Magical Secrets.
@@DUNGEONCRAFT1 Take 1 Hexblade/19 Lore Bard, take Elven Accuracy feat +1 CHA, take +2 CHA and Crossbow Master feat and use hand crossbow. Take the following spells: Simulacrum, Tenser Transformation, Haste, Find Greter Steed + Have Armor of Agathys upcasted if you really want.
Sit on Pegasus with Plate barding, cast Tenser Transformation. Your Simulacrum casts Haste on you. Now you do 4x attachs wit 3xd20 roll per attack, dealing 2d12 force damage extra per attack, your Pegasus (becasue Steed shares Self spells) is now attacking 3x with advantage with extra 2d12 force damage. Pegasus has 20 AC. You also have like 200 feet movement speed. AoA make every enemy that hits you (or Pegasus) in melee take 20-45 cold damage + you have no penalty in shooting hand crossbow in melee. With Curse from Hexblade on target you also crit on 19-20, which means you will crit for 2d6 + 4d12 per attack and Pegasus for even more. You also attack from Charisma because you are Hexblade.
Easy 150 + Damage Per Turn.
For Maximum damage let your Simulacrum get on his Pegasus, cast Tenser too and now you have two of them combine of 6x (1d6 + 2d12+ 5 + 6 from Curse) + 2x Pegasuses attacking 4 times total with extra 2d12 damage.
Easy 270+ Damage Per Turn.
Add Sharpshooter feat if you are mean to your DM and scale that to 200+ and 400+ dmg per turn.
I believe that the root cause (or at least a contributing factor) behind the WOTC D&D games is the number of player options -- I am tired of saying this, so no more on it here. Although the DM tools and canned fluff seem useful, a lot of players are going to own the book so there that goes. The solution to all of these problems is simply to stop buying D&D books, and start reading more fantasy literature in which all kinds of ideas for characters, settings, adventures exist. analysis of the authors techniques -- even of something like 'The DaVinci Chronicle," which is not even fantasy can show you how to structure an adventure so that it builds toward a climax, piece by piece. If you need puzzles, just get a little puzzle or brain teaser book and re-skin the fluff for your fantasy theme.
As a guy who uses only a few of the 5e rules, this is a little foreign. I do cringe a bit at all the races, classes and subclasses. Seems to complex to keep track of.
Interesting ending statement on clerics, which was my favorite class when I got to play (and not just DM). Since I still use most of the old school rules, only some of my clerics have healing abilities. My healing ethos cleric has serious weapon and armor restrictions (ie net, staff and NO armor) but they are great healers with numerous innate healing abilities. I have yet to have a player want to roll one though. War clerics have great combat abilities but limited spells and no turning in my world. I think that balances things out and makes the cleric an interesting class to play, but not better than a thief or mage. Furthermore, different types of clerics are just that, different but not better than the other styles.
I think healing is so plentiful that clerics aren’t needed as a healer class. Everyone has hit die that are able to be used if they survive the encounter, which is likely because CR is broken too. Most sessions are more episodic and narrative so there is basically a single encounter per gaming session. With players using hit dice at the end.
Very very good presentation. :)
Im with PDM on the flaws of races - it was cool to consider your downsides and RP them - but players hate having a minus to anything......
"A raceless classless point buy system where everyone is a spell caster and nobody dies."
^
You don't have to threaten me with a good time. I'm already sold.
sounds kinda awful to me.
The entire reason for the flexibility of Racial features and ASI is because of the branching out of worlds from the Forgotten Realms. If you've noticed, WotC has been pumping out sourcebooks for other settings (Eberron, MTG, etc) and the races there are a little different vs Forgotten Realms.
My biggest gripe here are summons. They bog down the game by a lot since everything has multiple attacks and stuff. It feels like spellcasters get buffed with every new source book, and spellcasters have a tendency to break the game.
But as Prof DM says, it's all optional, and you can always tell a player no. Good stuff!
Deathbringer is definitely going to be in my next campaign!
philip seymour mothman!!! +850XP
Angry Battle Bees!