# Tasha's Cauldron of Everything: An In-Depth Review



## imagineGod (Nov 22, 2020)

Thanks for the in-depth review, with a slice of good marketing on the side.


----------



## Zeromaru X (Nov 22, 2020)

That dragonborn looks like a blue half-dragon without tail... I do miss the traditional looking dragonborn from 4e, but if this means the books are going to show more dragonborn art (something 5e was lacking), then I  guess I have to get accustomed to it.

Thanks for the review. I do see this book is a must for me.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 22, 2020)

brimmels said:


> Should you get *Tasha's Cauldron of Everything*? Yes, unless you're an absolute purist who only wants *PHB* character options. Even if you love the subclasses in *XGtE*, some subclass in *TCoE* will interest you, and if you're a DM, it gives you a lot of ideas and options.



LOL No. I've just read through the book and I am glad I didn't waste my money on it. I love some of XGtE, but even that is 60% useless to me.

And as a DM, TCoE has nothing to offer me, either. I'm glad I didn't waste money actually buying it. 

FWIW, your review is pretty comprehensive, so kudos for that.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 22, 2020)

brimmels said:


> Should you get *Tasha's Cauldron of Everything*? Yes, unless you're an absolute purist who only wants *PHB* character options. Even if you love the subclasses in *XGtE*, some subclass in *TCoE* will interest you, and if you're a DM, it gives you a lot of ideas and options. They did a really good job with this one and packed a lot into its 192 pages. While not perfect (what is?), *TCoE* gives players and DMs a lot of good material.




Yes. I've just finished reading through the book and I am glad I spent good money on it. I love all of XGtE, as it was almost 100% useful to me.

And as a DM, TCoE has plenty to offer me, as well.*  I'm glad I spent money actually buying it. 



(*New classes and subclasses, new spells, new magic items, and plenty of good solid advice and excellent inspiration for games. It's worth its price alone for the Monster Research chart on page 148 alone!)


----------



## Bacon Bits (Nov 22, 2020)

For what it's worth, blade of disaster is a conversion of the 2e/3e spell black blade of disaster. Blade of disaster

It's supposed to summon a sword that's more or less made of a sphere of annihilation. It appeared in Baldur's Gate II as well, I think.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 22, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> LOL No. I've just read through the book and I am glad I didn't waste my money on it. I love some of XGtE, but even that is 60% useless to me.



Lol for myself, 90%+ of XGtE was worthless.  Tasha's, from everything I have read/seen so far, is shaping up to be the same.


dnd4vr said:


> And as a DM, TCoE has nothing to offer me, either. I'm glad I didn't waste money actually buying it.



Although, there are a couple of minor things  that I would find useful- the fighter builds, race customization (as a DM tool rather than a player tool), and a few spells, it would be a waste of money for me to purchase as well.


dnd4vr said:


> FWIW, your review is pretty comprehensive, so kudos for that.



Yeah, I have to give the op kudos for that as well


----------



## Jeff Carpenter (Nov 22, 2020)

The custom lineage box on page 8 basically gives you the ability to be a variant human, but take Darkvision instead of a skill proficiency. 

In my opinion, Darkvision plus feat at first level is way to powerful. Darkvision is way better than a skill.


----------



## Weiley31 (Nov 22, 2020)

Well I _was_ excited for my alternative cover copy to come in..............unfortunately it seems like it got lost or misplaced and wasn't in the location UPS left it at. _the front door apparently, but since I live in an apartment, that's a lot of front doors and I so far haven't seen anything yet._


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 22, 2020)

Demetrios1453 said:


> Yes. I've just finished reading through the book and I am glad I spent good money on it. I love all of XGtE, as it was almost 100% useful to me.
> 
> And as a DM, TCoE has plenty to offer me, as well.*  I'm glad I spent money actually buying it.
> 
> ...



Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thank you.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 22, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so thank you.



Papa Smurf must love you.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> Papa Smurf must love you.



As Goku must love you.


----------



## Espadadelaaurora (Nov 22, 2020)

Thanks for the review. 
For my part I'll stick with the PHB options, might just get the Bladesinger subclass through D&D Beyond. 
This kind of books are cool for sure, but tend to become useless as soon as a new edition is released. I know that has been talking about future editions will be retro compatible with 5e, I believe it will be so.... until it is otherwise....


----------



## Lucas Yew (Nov 22, 2020)

Art comment only: The bald guy looks like the last iteration of Mordenkainen I heard of; who might be the lady playing chess with him...?


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 22, 2020)

I enjoyed reading (and I'm not done) Tasha's and here are fun options in there.

And yet....

I feel that _this is the moment_ where 5e starts feeling bloated and power-creepy...


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 22, 2020)

Lucas Yew said:


> Art comment only: The bald guy looks like the last iteration of Mordenkainen I heard of; who might be the lady playing chess with him...?



Tasha of course.  Note the chicken-foot mark on her face


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 22, 2020)

Lucas Yew said:


> Art comment only: The bald guy looks like the last iteration of Mordenkainen I heard of; who might be the lady playing chess with him...?



The OP cut off the caption at the bottom, which states: "Tasha prepares to win another game of wizardly chess against her rival Mordenkainen."


----------



## Lucas Yew (Nov 22, 2020)

Ancalagon said:


> Tasha of course.  Note the chicken-foot mark on her face



Oooh, I missed that. By the way, is that mark a long established canon description of Igg..er, Tasha's visage?


Demetrios1453 said:


> The OP cut off the caption at the bottom, which states: "Tasha prepares to win another game of wizardly chess against her rival Mordenkainen."



Thanks for the missed information, I knew it was him on first sight (though if feels quite weird to have the older archmage D&D character get his "Gandalfy" looks seized by his intercosmic friend..ly(?) rival Elminster so had to settle down with some cool shaving)...


----------



## Gladius Legis (Nov 22, 2020)

Ancalagon said:


> I enjoyed reading (and I'm not done) Tasha's and here are fun options in there.
> 
> And yet....
> 
> I feel that _this is the moment_ where 5e starts feeling bloated and power-creepy...



Not sure "power-creepy" is the word I'd use for Tasha's. The problem seems to be the opposite. Most of it is pretty restrained, often to a fault. The subclasses on the whole, for example, are weak tea compared to what we saw in Xanathar's. A lot of the optional class features also kinda suck. (Looking at you, Favored Foe.)


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Nov 22, 2020)

Ancalagon said:


> I enjoyed reading (and I'm not done) Tasha's and here are fun options in there.
> 
> And yet....
> 
> I feel that _this is the moment_ where 5e starts feeling bloated and power-creepy...




Not sure I agree about power-creep, but I also feel some kind of ''jump the shark'' in terms of characters theme and features.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 22, 2020)

Ancalagon said:


> I feel that _this is the moment_ where 5e starts feeling bloated and power-creepy...



I agree with some others that I am not sure about power-creepy... but, oh boy, it is _really_ starting to feel bloated IMO. As this point, if 6E isn't in the works--it should be--time to move on.


----------



## Marc_C (Nov 22, 2020)

Thanks for the review. I *bought* and read Tasha's. More options, under the DM control, is always welcomed. I really like this book. The 5e *toolbox* is now even more interesting for home-brewing DMs (and players) who are interested in creating *unique* fantasy settings. The sidekick rules mixed with the hazard section will be very useful to me for *solo* play and regular play.


----------



## Guest User (Nov 22, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> but, oh boy, it is _really_ starting to feel bloated IMO. As this point, if 6E isn't in the works--it should be--time to move on.



Take some Ex-lax, if you feel bloated ..don't purge the system, only to start the whole process over again. 

D&D, between Tasha's and Xanathar has added 35 feats.  There are 40-ish feats in the PHB.  By comparison, a single _Complete Book of X, _from 2e, might have had more kits contained within, then all 3 Character Creation facing books of 5e combined.

If you are bored, play something else....but I myself have no interest at this point, or in the foreseeable future, to the idea of  creating 6e.

Bounded Accuracy is not going away, so a "Sixth Edition" D&D is the same car, but the fenders, hood, and paint job have been replaced for appearance parts.

I don't need to pay "new car prices" for a game, that will not be changed very much from what it is now.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 22, 2020)

Thunderous Mojo said:


> Take some Ex-lax, if you feel bloated ..don't purge the system, only to start the whole process over again.
> 
> D&D, between Tasha's and Xanathar has added 35 feats.  There are 40-ish feats in the PHB.  By comparison, a single _Complete Book of X, _from 2e, might have had more kits contained within, then all 3 Character Creation facing books of 5e combined.
> 
> ...



I don't feel bloated, FYI, but the game is getting that way again...

So, yes, 2E had plenty of bloat and splat books! I never cared much for them, either. 

3E/3.5E got pretty bad as well. I can't say about 4E or Pathfinder as I never played them.

But 5E is heading down that road right now...

Anyway, creating 6E will take _years_ so I am just saying at this point it should be in the works IMO. It might take another 5 years (or more) before it is ready.

Bounded Accuracy doesn't need to go anywhere (but it should be expanded IMO to a cap of 40, not 30, as you can easily get bigger numbers as it is thanks to things like expertise...). Otherwise, who knows what changes they will come up with?


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 22, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> Otherwise, who knows what changes they will come up with?



Your Bonus Action gets a Bonus Action.


----------



## BlivetWidget (Nov 22, 2020)

I really like the Master Scrivener feature but I'm very surprised it didn't get a quantity limitation - only a once per day limitation.  Every other such feature says something like "the ___ disappears if you create another one or if you die."  For the reusable cost of 1 sp per scroll, any Scribe wizard who's paying attention is going to have an entire library full of these things.  Then on adventuring days, a handful of these scrolls means never having to spend low-level slots on stuff like Mage Armor, Detect Magic, Sleep, etc.

Does it also get around material cost limitations?  It reads to me like this could be used to completely circumvent the cost of spells like Continual Flame, Arcane Lock, etc.  You create the scroll by just touching the quill to the book.  Casting from a scroll requires no material components.  Am I missing something?

As I said, I like this, it just seems like it's too good to be true, making me suspect they did not think through the obvious implications.


----------



## Jeff Carpenter (Nov 22, 2020)

Ancalagon said:


> I enjoyed reading (and I'm not done) Tasha's and here are fun options in there.
> 
> And yet....
> 
> I feel that _this is the moment_ where 5e starts feeling bloated and power-creepy...



Well said. More sub classes for sub classes sake is what i get out of many of the options. 

Did we need a wildmagic barbarian? Maybe in a setting book where it tied to the lore but its not a genre trope that was going unfilled.

Im all for 5.5 and a mid edition overhaul.


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 22, 2020)

Lucas Yew said:


> Oooh, I missed that. By the way, is that mark a long established canon description of Igg..er, Tasha's visage?



I don't know, but it seems pretty consistent in the art of this book....


----------



## Ancalagon (Nov 22, 2020)

Jeff Carpenter said:


> Did we need a wildmagic barbarian? Maybe in a setting book where it tied to the lore but its not a genre trope that was going unfilled.




Ironically, _I_ needed a wildmagic barbarian for an NPC in one of my games (Yoon Suin).... buuuuut it's a pretty narrow niche, I'll give  you that.


----------



## MNblockhead (Nov 22, 2020)

I've only skimmed it and ready a few sections on DnD Beyond, but I'm enjoying it. I'm not sure it will see the same heavy use as Xanathar's as I have house rules for retainers/followers, patrons, etc. But maybe my players will find the new subclass options. I thought the puzzle section was one of the best parts of the book and filled an actual gap in 5e, so I was happy to see that. 

It is always interesting to read people's varied reactions to the 5e books.  The crunch and fluff continue to hit my sweet spot. It has been the adventures that have been more hit or miss for me.


----------



## Tyler Do'Urden (Nov 22, 2020)

I'll probably pick it up eventually - I like the Sidekicks and Patrons system, and a lot of nice options. But it's not high on my list right now.


----------



## Weiley31 (Nov 22, 2020)

Well if WoTC keeps it up the theme, the Dragons(subclasses) are coming!


----------



## Wrathamon (Nov 22, 2020)

I feel the book was too short for the price but I like the book.


----------



## Crit (Nov 22, 2020)

Jeff Carpenter said:


> Well said. More sub classes for sub classes sake is what i get out of many of the options.
> 
> Did we need a wildmagic barbarian? Maybe in a setting book where it tied to the lore but its not a genre trope that was going unfilled.
> 
> Im all for 5.5 and a mid edition overhaul.



"Need" is a strong word, but it is different and, in my opinion, a good choice to have available if it's what your character concept fits into. I was personally disinterested in Phantom Rogue, and some other subclasses, but I wouldn't say that they weren't niches worth filling. I'm extremely happy with Sorcerer and Artificer, for example. I feel like I'm getting more satisfaction than not, so that's my purchase justified in regards to subclasses. Aside from that, subclasses for subclasses' sake isn't a bad thing if the bulk of what we get still appeals to someone or is an idea we didn't have precedent for before. 

I expect to dip into each part of TCoE's chapters a bunch going forward, as a player and as a DM. I more or less bought the book for the group, so I don't doubt for a second that this book is worth every penny for our purposes. It's not been out long, but even the race-attribute freedom has opened up a lot of ideas for us, and having it as an official rule is beneficial to the community. Some DMs wouldn't allow this kind of stuff if it wasn't in a book, but now it is. I could go on about Sidekicks, parleying, Summon spell benefits and whatnot, but it's not necessary. 

I don't remember who said it, but this is Tasha's Cauldron of do whatever you want. As is, it now has rules that specifically open up freeing options for the broader community rather than just individual DMs take an axe to things.


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 22, 2020)

Thanks for the deep review, it's very good, although I missed you mention the feats and alternate class features / free boosts.

I strongly object to your conclusion however:



brimmels said:


> Should You Buy It?​Should you get *Tasha's Cauldron of Everything*? Yes, unless you're an absolute purist who only wants *PHB* character options. Even if you love the subclasses in *XGtE*, some subclass in *TCoE* will interest you, and if you're a DM, it gives you a lot of ideas and options. They did a really good job with this one and packed a lot into its 192 pages. While not perfect (what is?), *TCoE* gives players and DMs a lot of good material.




I am NOT a "purist" who only wants PHB options, in fact I do love XGtE and all its subclasses (even the reprints), but almost none of TCoE subclasses are up to the match, at least as far as I can tell from their UA previews, the Ranger's Fey Wanderer is probably the only good one. Almost all suclasses after XGtE just scraped the bottom of the barrel for goofy concepts (a Druid who burns stuff, a Paladin who cares only for his own self), or rehashed older ones. Mechanically it's  always about damage, healing or advantage, almost zero new tactical ideas. I don't need more cantrips (and I always hated the SCAG ones), or damaging spells. The most promising parts of TCoE were the class alternate features and feats, and there are some goodies among a mix of bummers and overpowered stuff, but it's too little... as a player I don't buy a book if it feels like it would be useful only for a couple of characters.

Now, as a DM, which I am most of the time, TCoE does NOT give me a lot of ideas and options. First of all it gives me a lot of PROBLEMS I didn't have before if I let my players freely pick from it, especially the class free boosts and "flexibility" rules, so those are out of the question. Then... the book has a lot of stuff for beginners DM: session zero? Parley with monsters? Group patrons? Puzzles? That's stuff I've been managing for ages without the need of a book. New magic items might include some cool stuff but I can't judge without seeing them. The only section I find interesting is the one about environmental hazards, but sadly it appears to be a very short list. Now that's something I'd buy a whole book about!


----------



## Li Shenron (Nov 22, 2020)

Crit said:


> I don't remember who said it, but this is Tasha's Cauldron of do whatever you want. As is, it now has rules that specifically open up freeing options for the broader community rather than just individual DMs take an axe to things.



For me it's a terrible thing. It's "buy this book and earn the moral higher ground on your DM".


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 22, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> For me it's a terrible thing. It's "buy this book and earn the moral higher ground on your DM".



"Everything in this book is optional. Each group, guided by the DM, decides which of these options, if any, to incorporate into a campaign. You can use some, all, or none of them."

-Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, "It's All Optional", page 4.

If any of your players try to "earn the moral high ground", point them to that. It's basically the first thing in the book, immediately after the introduction and chapter descriptions. If a player continues in such behavior after that, well, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't allow such a disruptive player at my table.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 22, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> I don't feel bloated, FYI, but the game is getting that way again...



No, it's not.  The game has less crunch to it than 3e did after it's first year.  3e eventually got bloated, at about 4-5 years in.  5e is nowhere near that, though.


----------



## Crit (Nov 22, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> For me it's a terrible thing. It's "buy this book and earn the moral higher ground on your DM".



"Earn the moral high ground." Not to be rude, but what do you mean there? It's a DM-approved book that enables optional character building freedom and, like, 15 pages of weather. This sounds like you have a problem with your players, not the book. 

I disagree with your other comment. Wildfire druid (as a concept) makes perfect sense. Wildfires are relevant to ecology, and therein eco-wizards, to say the least. Didn't you say that your take is based on UA? I wouldn't review the book that's supposed to revise something based on what it's revising. I'm sorry to hear that you dislike SCAG cantrips and don't want more cantrips, but may I ask why? They have a clear place in the game and community. Everyone I've met with a spell caster character has had one of those cantrips, and most builds I see online mention one or both too. Also, no tactics? I don't know what to say other than I disagree here too. You haven't read up on many of the subclasses like those for Fighter, Sorcerer, Artificer, Wizard, etc. The new feats, spells and cantrips often have additional effects that have tactical significance- Mind Sliver is an obvious go-to cantrip for setting up Save DC spells, and Booming Blade has always been valued for some level of battlefield control. Tasha's mind whip does similar, forcing enemies to prioritize their turn options. Summon spells are valuable too, giving spell casters one strong central companion rather than disposable weaker summons or none at all. Magic items were cool too, here. 

I'm happy that you personally can handle monster parleys, group patrons, etc., but now there are official rules for it, making it accessible/standardized for the community as a whole. I would suggest finding a place to read TCoE online, or borrow the book from someone. I'm sure it'll be a less "terrible" thing for your group if you talk things out with them or something.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 22, 2020)

Maxperson said:


> No, it's not.  The game has less crunch to it than 3e did after it's first year.  3e eventually got bloated, at about 4-5 years in.  5e is nowhere near that, though.



_Meh_ difference of opinion on what constitutes "bloated".   

As I said, IMO, 5E is getting that way (again, as in: it has happened to other editions). YMMV.


----------



## willrali (Nov 23, 2020)

I don’t think the game is starting to feel bloated at all. Quite the reverse. I’m halfway through and it’s very clear this is a book of fluff—super basic stuff, lots of words but nothing added.

At this stage, the samey-ness and blandness of dnd is really wearing me out. There’s no spice in the game. The mechanics are super simple and endlessly repeated with different names.

I think I’m 85% done with it.


----------



## NaturalZero (Nov 23, 2020)

I have to assume that anyone claiming "bloat" after the second player option book in 6 years is throwing out some heavy, heavy, heavy sarcasm.


----------



## SehanineMoonbow (Nov 23, 2020)

brimmels said:


> ​The book opens with rules for customizing your character's origin. The initial announcement of this was met with controversy, but it's presented here as just another way to make the character you envision. Maybe your dwarf has previously worked so relentlessly as a miner that a +2 to Strength makes more sense or maybe they come from a line of dwarven scholars who know everything about enchanting metal and stones and have a +2 Intelligence bonus instead. The framework for customizing your PC's ability score increases, languages, and proficiencies is pretty simple and logical. So simple, you could have extrapolated from studying the *PHB*. Having it laid out saves time, though.



This makes me feel a bit better, though I'm still not certain I want the book (may look through it first). I'm not a fan of MToF, and I'll admit, when I first heard about these new customizations, I was worried they were taking things a bit too far, as some of the options were originally a cultural thing as much as a skill/class (bladesinger, for example). I get trying to make more options available for RP reasons, but in trying to make things more unique, I worried they were actually going to take away some uniqueness, as cultures are part of adding diversity. But the way you explained it here makes more sense.


----------



## NaturalZero (Nov 23, 2020)

willrali said:


> I don’t think the game is starting to feel bloated at all. Quite the reverse. I’m halfway through and it’s very clear this is a book of fluff—super basic stuff, lots of words but nothing added.
> 
> At this stage, the samey-ness and blandness of dnd is really wearing me out. There’s no spice in the game. The mechanics are super simple and endlessly repeated with different names.
> 
> I think I’m 85% done with it.



They definitely seem a lot more conservative about doing different things and experimenting. Previously, they got into the more interesting outside-of-the-box stuff later in the edition's life cycle and it provided us with some really fresh options.  Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, et al, gave us stuff that was a bit more evocative than the standard "here's another class with spell slots." 

And really, that's what I want to see more of in 5e. Less spells slot classes that go back to the same old list with the same old spells.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 23, 2020)

willrali said:


> At this stage, the samey-ness and blandness of dnd is really wearing me out. There’s no spice in the game. The mechanics are super simple and endlessly repeated with different names.
> 
> I think I’m 85% done with it.



I'm right there with you, but probably closer to 95%. I am running ID:RotFM for our group because one of the players bought the book and asked me to run it, but our other games have moved on to Shadowrun. Once we finish Frostmaiden, I probably won't play 5E anymore. Anyone who's followed my posts and the plethora of house-rule threads knows I have tried and tried and tried to find interest in 5E but it just isn't happening. There is a lot I would have loved to see in a new 5E book, but TCoE is not really any of it, unfortunately.



NaturalZero said:


> Previously, they got into the more interesting outside-of-the-box stuff later in the edition's life cycle and it provided us with some really fresh options. Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle, et al, gave us stuff that was a bit more evocative than the standard "here's another class with spell slots."
> 
> And really, that's what I want to see more of in 5e. Less spells slot classes that go back to the same old list with the same old spells.



Yep, a different "focus" for new material would be more to my liking personally than just more PC stuff and options... many of which I don't find appealing or interesting at all. _shrug_



NaturalZero said:


> I have to assume that anyone claiming "bloat" after the second player option book in 6 years is throwing out some heavy, heavy, heavy sarcasm.



Nope, no sarcasm at all. This type of fluff and "useless" player options is much to reminiscent of the splat books and bloat of 2E... I'm not saying 5E is anywhere _close_ to that level, but I see this as a step down that road. _another shrug_


----------



## jerryrice4949 (Nov 23, 2020)

NaturalZero said:


> I have to assume that anyone claiming "bloat" after the second player option book in 6 years is throwing out some heavy, heavy, heavy sarcasm.



Totally agree.  I don’t see any bloat.  I like this book but feel like it could have been so much better.  Order of Scribes is so clunky.  I also had hoped for more customization.  To me this book did not include nearly enough feats and player options and should have spent more time on a modular system for races.  Less then a page on lineage? Really?  This book could, shoot should have been so much more.


----------



## Guest User (Nov 23, 2020)

jerryrice4949 said:


> I also had hoped for more customization. To me this book did not include nearly enough feats and player options and should have spent more time on a modular system for races. Less then a page on lineage?



Nothing is more bespoke, than rules you create yourself.  So go create the customization rules you want. 

I'm at a stage in my RPG playing life, where I want Rules Light, for my Fantasy games.
I don't want a _Build a Bear_ style system of racial trait construction.
Been there, done that.

The Seven or so Staff designers for D&D are not going to know my game better than me.  I am always happy, when WOTC does not introduce some cumbersome ruleset, say Spell Identification in XGE, that I will just ignore anyway.



dnd4vr said:


> This type of fluff and "useless" player options is much to reminiscent of the splat books and bloat of 2E... I'm not saying 5E is anywhere _close_ to that level, but I see this as a step down that road



2e had a lot more fluff books....gazetteers and such with very little player facing rules crunch, then 5e, will likely ever have.
At  around 6+ subclasses for each class, (outside Artificer), and plenty of feats, if 5e holds off on  having another "Book of Everything" for another 3 years, this would be fine.

Based off Tasha's, D&D and MtG, are being blended. Planewalking/Spell Jamming/World Dreaming seems to be in the future.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 23, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> _Meh_ difference of opinion on what constitutes "bloated".
> 
> As I said, IMO, 5E is getting that way (again, as in: it has happened to other editions). YMMV.



It might be an illusion, though.  It could feel that way. because you have multiple books to look at to find the crunch.  All of the feats, subclasses and races could be fit into one thin book, though.  If it was all in one book it might not feel bloated to you.


----------



## imagineGod (Nov 23, 2020)

Sometimes, I miss the simple  bonuses of +1, +2, +3 replaced with Advantage or Disadvantage. We have had instances were disadvantage was pretty harsh. Pity, Tasha's Guide cannot offer that alternative without breaking 5th Edition.


----------



## imagineGod (Nov 23, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> _Meh_ difference of opinion on what constitutes "bloated".
> 
> As I said, IMO, 5E is getting that way (again, as in: it has happened to other editions). YMMV.



I guess you have not read the newest Level Up Previews being crafted by experts here at ENWorld, to offer more options to make D&D even more exciting for the long time players.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 23, 2020)

imagineGod said:


> I guess you have not read the newest Level Up Previews being crafted by experts here at ENWorld, to offer more options to make D&D even more exciting for the long time players.



Oh, I was one of the first to get into Level Up when it started. Then when I saw the direction it was going, quickly abandoned ship.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Nov 23, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> I'm right there with you, but probably closer to 95%. I am running ID:RotFM for our group because one of the players bought the book and asked me to run it, but our other games have moved on to Shadowrun. Once we finish Frostmaiden, I probably won't play 5E anymore. Anyone who's followed my posts and the plethora of house-rule threads knows I have tried and tried and tried to find interest in 5E but it just isn't happening. There is a lot I would have loved to see in a new 5E book, but TCoE is not really any of it, unfortunately.
> 
> 
> Yep, a different "focus" for new material would be more to my liking personally than just more PC stuff and options... many of which I don't find appealing or interesting at all. _shrug_
> ...



I think I am with you on the useless statement.

it’s not the number of options that is the problem.  It’s the number of options that seem poorly thought out mechanically or jammed in without a much thought to any archetype in fantasy.

I am talking about weird combos or fluff that you never encountered and would never have missed.  Some might like it but the wild magic barbarian seems forced—-as in we need another barbarian so make some sh*t up stat!  Among others.

some of these seem like attempts to hang a certain mechanical package on....well anything with nearly arbitrary labels.

so when you say bloat, that is what comes to mind.

if they were all well thought out or needed, you could have double the options and it would not seem like bloat to me.  When we get to grasping for something, anything to add it brings that question about.


----------



## Guest User (Nov 23, 2020)

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Some might like it but the wild magic barbarian seems forced—-as in we need another barbarian so make some sh*t up stat! Among others



The Rage Mage concept has been around since 3e.

Jeremy Crawford lead 5e D&D, has consistently, not created new ideas.
The games has been about re-using the ideas that came before in D&D.
(which is why the game appeals to the the rpg crowd that did not like 3e)

Outside the Ancestor Barbarian, or the Echo Knight, almost all of the subclasses are a rehash product.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Nov 23, 2020)

Understood.  I should say adding stuff that was not needed for good conceptual or mechanical reasons whether new for the edition or pulled from another one.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 23, 2020)

Warpiglet-7 said:


> if they were all well thought out or needed, you could have double the options and it would not seem like bloat to me. When we get to grasping for something, anything to add it brings that question about.



Agree completely with this. Most of the junk in XGtE and TCoE seems like garbage to me personally and is stuff I will _never_ use. Many of the concepts are bad and many of the ones that are good in concept are poor in execution IMO. Frankly, since enough people still seem to like such things however, I feel like WotC won't be challenged to product anything better--we'll just keep getting more of the same. That is fine for the people who like it, but for me is a clear indicator that 5E has peaked and it is time to look ahead (and WotC should start doing just that IMO...).

For me, after Frostmaiden a break from 5E is needed and if I go back to D&D, it will probably be to 1E.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Nov 23, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> Agree completely with this. Most of the junk in XGtE and TCoE seems like garbage to me personally and is stuff I will _never_ use. Many of the concepts are bad and many of the ones that are good in concept are poor in execution IMO. Frankly, since enough people still seem to like such things however, I feel like WotC won't be challenged to product anything better--we'll just keep getting more of the same. That is fine for the people who like it, but for me is a clear indicator that 5E has peaked and it is time to look ahead (and WotC should start doing just that IMO...).
> 
> For me, after Frostmaiden a break from 5E is needed and if I go back to D&D, it will probably be to 1E.



Haha good ol’ 1e!

if I ever quit  or break from 5e, I would be for 1e...have not played it now it 20?!  Omg! Years since 3e.

how depressing 

I like 5e.  But I think what I like best is the core books and select subclasses.  I like racial feats fine.

just no so much the niches that never needed to be filled...  

Some weird ass stuff at times...


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 23, 2020)

Warpiglet-7 said:


> Haha good ol’ 1e!
> 
> if I ever quit  or break from 5e, I would be for 1e...have not played it now it 20?!  Omg! Years since 3e.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I dig out my 1E stuff often. D&D then was a different beast. I know it is a frame-of-mind thing, but 5E is a "reward" system for gaining levels, and IMO 1E the reward was pretty much the adventure, itself. _shrug_ I don't know if I can explain it better than that. I've said before: 5E is about what you can do, 1E is about what you actually do (if that makes sense?).



Warpiglet-7 said:


> just no so much the niches that never needed to be filled...
> 
> Some weird ass stuff at times...



Yeah, definitely agree with this.


----------



## Guest User (Nov 23, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> For me, after Frostmaiden a break from 5E is needed and if I go back to D&D, it will probably be to 1E.



 dnd4vr.....I believe, that is what you want...but it seems just like Al Pacino in 
The Godfather 3..."Every time you think you are free of 5e, _they_ pull you back in".


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 23, 2020)

Thunderous Mojo said:


> "Every time you think you are free of 5e, _they_ pull you back in".



Unless they come out with (what I feel) is better material/rules/options/etc. I doubt it. The desire or need to feel I must gain something new with each level is not my mindset, personally.

It is like video games. I used to love video games (particularly NFS, Tomb Raider, Thief, and Starcraft), but now I can't stand them. I find them boring and repetitive and a waste of my time. _shrug_ I think my outlook on D&D has simply gone the same route. I would rather play BECMI or a system that mechanically is very rudimentary but without the constant (or near-constant) rewards.

In 5E, I have found (and seen) way too many players interested in their character "builds" than the adventures their characters go on or the world in which they live. 5E isn't unique by any means in this, it started long ago (my first experience with it was in 3E, which is why I played it less than a year).

Anyway, I don't want this to become an edition thread, so I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to discuss it further, please PM me.


----------



## Wrathamon (Nov 23, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> Anyway, I don't want this to become an edition thread, so I'll leave it at that. If anyone wants to discuss it further, please PM me.



thank you for your self awareness


----------



## D1Tremere (Nov 23, 2020)

Great review OP.
I find this edition to be the most creatively empowering and easy to use of all so far, and I think the tools on Tasha's are a great fit. When it comes to older editions in general, and 3.5 particularly, I don't think "bloat" was ever the problem. My position is that you can never have too many tools or options. The problem was always management in my opinion, and that seems to be a problem now managed thanks to D&D beyond. I'm very happy to be a gamer today!


----------



## Crit (Nov 24, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> Unless they come out with (what I feel) is better material/rules/options/etc. I doubt it. The desire or need to feel I must gain something new with each level is not my mindset, personally.
> 
> It is like video games. I used to love video games (particularly NFS, Tomb Raider, Thief, and Starcraft), but now I can't stand them. I find them boring and repetitive and a waste of my time. _shrug_ I think my outlook on D&D has simply gone the same route. I would rather play BECMI or a system that mechanically is very rudimentary but without the constant (or near-constant) rewards.
> 
> In 5E, I have found (and seen) way too many players interested in their character "builds" than the adventures their characters go on or the world in which they live. 5E isn't unique by any means in this, it started long ago (my first experience with it was in 3E, which is why I played it less than a year).




If a Build-Player didn't care about the adventure before, taking away Character Build options wouldn't change that. The problem you describe is the audience only showing up for half of the experience, not so much the game. Who loses anything from something gained level by level? It may not be your cup of tea, but I'd be surprised if it took away from your experience.

Gameplay wise, all I can do is offer an explanation- the more stuff that happens, the more a player is engaged by the game's mechanics. People like seeing progress happen in measurable ways, and that's as fair as anything else. IMO, the RP generally stays the same if it's the same party and DM. The only difference Character Building has is if maybe one or two people are present that wouldn't have been before. 

I too want an improved system, with better options and mechanics, but I can't really say how at the moment. No matter what, I don't want character build culture to go away.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 24, 2020)

_Tasha's Caustic Brew _should really have been called_ Tasha's Caustic Spew.  _The material component is a piece of rotten meat, which I assume the caster eats and then vomits up a stream of acidic gastric bile onto her enemies. 

And I loved the painting of Iggwilv and Graz'zt gazing adoringly at each other.

I also _love _the Oath of Glory, even thought it was published previously.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Nov 24, 2020)

D1Tremere said:


> Great review OP.
> I find this edition to be the most creatively empowering and easy to use of all so far, and I think the tools on Tasha's are a great fit. When it comes to older editions in general, and 3.5 particularly, I don't think "bloat" was ever the problem. My position is that you can never have too many tools or options. The problem was always management in my opinion, and that seems to be a problem now managed thanks to D&D beyond. I'm very happy to be a gamer today!



That's a very good point. It was incredibly hard to keep track of all the various components of 3.x as it was going on. I kept an running spreadsheet of the monsters I'd plan to use as a DM, but that was enough work in itself - when it came to feats, spells, prestige classes, and so on, it was just too much to try to keep up with! Thankfully D&D Beyond makes that so much easier these days (although 5e isn't anywhere near 3.x levels!)


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 24, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> Unless they come out with (what I feel) is better material/rules/options/etc. I doubt it. The desire or need to feel I must gain something new with each level is not my mindset, personally.
> 
> It is like video games. I used to love video games (particularly NFS, Tomb Raider, Thief, and Starcraft), but now I can't stand them. I find them boring and repetitive and a waste of my time. _shrug_ I think my outlook on D&D has simply gone the same route. I would rather play BECMI or a system that mechanically is very rudimentary but without the constant (or near-constant) rewards.
> 
> ...



Players being more interested in builds and mechanics than in actually playing a game was an issue long before 3rd edition.

One things for sure, you can't fix it by adding _more_ rules!

It's perfectly natural to get tired of a game system, and it's healthy to rotate periodically.


----------



## MNblockhead (Nov 24, 2020)

I'm not anywhere near done with 5e. I could probably continue to play it for the rest of my gaming life. But I am getting more cautious with what I'll include. My concern is whether all the new character concepts will break adventures created years before those new options became available. So far, it hasn't been much of an issue. 

I did find combat getting to be a bit of a slog. Moving to an GP for XP has helped keep the game interesting for me. 

Still, playing other systems is important to me to keep gaming fresh and fun. I play D&D once a month and it is always like coming home. It is comfortable and my familiarity with the rules lets me focus on running the story and being prepared for what's around the corner. 

But I'm really looking forward to my MAGE game and starting up a Cortex Prime based homebrew and getting regular breaks from the XP and HP slog that D&D can sometimes become.


----------



## Azuresun (Nov 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Players being more interested in builds and mechanics than in actually playing a game was an issue long before 3rd edition.
> 
> One things for sure, you can't fix it by adding _more_ rules!
> 
> It's perfectly natural to get tired of a game system, and it's healthy to rotate periodically.




Indeed--it's a better and healthier option than just hanging around like a bad smell, still using the system but complaining about every single aspect of it.


----------



## TheSword (Nov 24, 2020)

Has the bladesinger changed significantly from the Sword Coast Adventures version?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Nov 24, 2020)

TheSword said:


> Has the bladesinger changed significantly from the Sword Coast Adventures version?



Yes and No, The changes are; removal of racial restrictions, bladesong is the same but the uses are now proficiency times per long rest as from 2 per short rest the big change is that as part of the extra attack, one of the attacks can use a cantrip. 
This makes melee a better option for a bladesinger than before.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Players being more interested in builds and mechanics than in actually playing a game was an issue long before 3rd edition.
> 
> One things for sure, you can't fix it by adding _more_ rules!
> 
> It's perfectly natural to get tired of a game system, and it's healthy to rotate periodically.



Hey @Paul Farquhar, I'll PM you a response to keep it out of the thread.


----------



## TheSword (Nov 24, 2020)

ardoughter said:


> Yes and No, The changes are; removal of racial restrictions, bladesong is the same but the uses are now proficiency times per long rest as from 2 per short rest the big change is that as part of the extra attack, one of the attacks can use a cantrip.
> This makes melee a better option for a bladesinger than before.



Ok that is a big change. Attack + GFB + bonus action spell + reaction is a pretty nice combo.


----------



## Maxperson (Nov 24, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Players being more interested in builds and mechanics than in actually playing a game was an issue long before 3rd edition.
> 
> One things for sure, you can't fix it by adding _more_ rules!
> 
> It's perfectly natural to get tired of a game system, and it's healthy to rotate periodically.



It wasn't an issue, though.  If you like playing for builds, there's nothing wrong with that.  Find a DM and players that play that way and have at it.  However, a great many of us used all of those prestige classes and feats not for "builds," but rather to achieve character concepts to roleplay and have mechanics that simply supported that play, even if that concept wasn't the most powerful. A lot of those substandard feats, classes and prestige classes got used by us.


----------



## Guest User (Nov 24, 2020)

dnd4vr said:


> In 5E, I have found (and seen) way too many players interested in their character "builds" than the adventures their characters go on or the world in which they live. 5E isn't unique by any means in this, it started long ago



I empathize with this statement, but I think your objection applies more to the zeitgeist of the gaming community than to the rules directly.

I loved the early D&D Next rules!  The sheer paucity of rules, reminded me of the fun of playing "let's pretend" with a bunch of friends.

Like many here, I have been role-playing for decades. 
Gary Gygax wrote in the archived thread on this website, that as he got older, he wanted less rules.  When he was younger, he wanted to write more rules, more details.

My experience with 5e, has been that it has encouraged people to focus less on 'builds' and _more_ on character.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Nov 24, 2020)

Thunderous Mojo said:


> My experience with 5e, has been that it has encouraged people to focus less on 'builds' and _more_ on character.



That is great for you! (seriously) But my experience has been exactly the opposite. _shrug_

I will freely admit that 5E isn't as bad about focus on builds as I remember 3E being.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 25, 2020)

I've been slowly working my way through the book, and I just don't get  the idea that these subclasses are "uninspired" 

A truly feral barbarian who expresses animalistic fighting styles
A cleric of harsh law and order, a cleric of the dusk and night sky seeking to protect the flock
All the druids, spore and flame speaking towards the natural cycle of life, death, rebirth. The star druids focusing not only on the original druidic imagery but focusing on the natural world above instead of just the forest. 


But lets move on to other ideas. I know it isn't exciting, but Blessed and Primal Warrior giving cantrips to Paladins and Rangers opens up options they really didn't have. 

The Artificer may not be new, but this is the first someone who doesn't buy Eberron material will have seen it

Battlemasters get skill manuevers, Interception fighting style offers a strong defensive option. 

Crusher, Piercer and Slasher are huge additions for weapon fighters. I've got a friend who built a staff fighter just to take advantage of the crusher feat (he has then proceeded to kill more than push, but you can't win them all.) 

How about magic items. Anyone else noticed the phenomenal new weapon in the Devotee's Censer? Nature's Mantle for Rangers? Spell Shards for Sorcerers? 



There is simply a lot here, and a lot of it inspires me.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 25, 2020)

jerryrice4949 said:


> Order of Scribes is so clunky.



I hate this subclass so much that it's unreasonable how much I hate it. I am all for more subclasses, and I have nothing against giving more subclasses to the Wizard, but WotC did me wrong with this one. This was originally the Archivist subclass, which was the *most popular artificer subclass ever* put in Unearthed Arcana (and my favorite artificer subclass ). But because some people decided to complain about it stepping on the Wizard's toes, WotC decided to suddenly change this into a half-developed wizard subclass that not only takes the worst parts of the Archivist subclass, but also gives them an ability that stomps on the foot of the Sorcerer (damage-type switching). Not only did they fail to properly develop it from the UA form to its official form, but kept all of the clunky parts of it. 

They took my favorite subclass from my favorite class in the game (that has the least amount of official subclasses) and turned it into my least favorite subclass with the class that has the 2nd highest number of subclasses in the game. (The cleric has 14 subclasses, the wizard has 13. Up until TCoE, Wizards had the most subclasses.) 

I am banning this subclass from my table. It does not exist to me. I guess I have to make my own version of the Archivist, now.


----------



## MoonSong (Nov 25, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I hate this subclass so much that it's unreasonable how much I hate it. I am all for more subclasses, and I have nothing against giving more subclasses to the Wizard, but WotC did me wrong with this one. This was originally the Archivist subclass, which was the *most popular artificer subclass ever* put in Unearthed Arcana (and my favorite artificer subclass ). But because some people decided to complain about it stepping on the Wizard's toes, WotC decided to suddenly change this into a half-developed wizard subclass that not only takes the worst parts of the Archivist subclass, but also gives them an ability that stomps on the foot of the Sorcerer (damage-type switching). Not only did they fail to properly develop it from the UA form to its official form, but kept all of the clunky parts of it.
> 
> They took my favorite subclass from my favorite class in the game (that has the least amount of official subclasses) and turned it into my least favorite subclass with the class that has the 2nd highest number of subclasses in the game. (The cleric has 14 subclasses, the wizard has 13. Up until TCoE, Wizards had the most subclasses.)
> 
> I am banning this subclass from my table. It does not exist to me. I guess I have to make my own version of the Archivist, now.



I'm plain banning wizard from any game I DM in the future. There is already so much more players than I feel comfortable turning down. Banning wizards would actually make my life easier. 

In a flash of personal good news, my copy seems to have passed through customs! I'm excited!


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Nov 25, 2020)

Need to read more carefully before commenting.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 26, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I hate this subclass so much that it's unreasonable how much I hate it. I am all for more subclasses, and I have nothing against giving more subclasses to the Wizard, but WotC did me wrong with this one. This was originally the Archivist subclass, which was the *most popular artificer subclass ever* put in Unearthed Arcana (and my favorite artificer subclass ). But because some people decided to complain about it stepping on the Wizard's toes, WotC decided to suddenly change this into a half-developed wizard subclass that not only takes the worst parts of the Archivist subclass, but also gives them an ability that stomps on the foot of the Sorcerer (damage-type switching). Not only did they fail to properly develop it from the UA form to its official form, but kept all of the clunky parts of it.
> 
> They took my favorite subclass from my favorite class in the game (that has the least amount of official subclasses) and turned it into my least favorite subclass with the class that has the 2nd highest number of subclasses in the game. (The cleric has 14 subclasses, the wizard has 13. Up until TCoE, Wizards had the most subclasses.)
> 
> I am banning this subclass from my table. It does not exist to me. I guess I have to make my own version of the Archivist, now.



I'm not sure where you are getting the information that the archivist was the most popular artificer subclass ever, since WotC don't publish poll results, but I thought it was horribly broken. "Wizard's toes" had nothing to do with it. The issue was the invulnerable combat pet that could trivialise any dungeon. Fortunately the wizard version significantly toned it down so it can no longer do a dungeon single handed.

I think the issue was, as a half caster the artificer is difficult to balance without giving it a strong pet or paladin-ish combat abilities. The wizard, as a full caster, is strong enough on it's own, and so can afford to have a relatively weak pet.

As a wizard subclass, I'm fine with it, the UA version had some issues, but they seem to have been cleared up.


----------



## BigZebra (Nov 26, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm not sure where you are getting the information that the archivist was the most popular artificer subclass ever, since WotC don't publish poll results, but I thought it was horribly broken. "Wizard's toes" had nothing to do with it. The issue was the invulnerable combat pet that could trivialise any dungeon. Fortunately the wizard version significantly toned it down so it can no longer do a dungeon single handed.
> 
> I think the issue was, as a half caster the artificer is difficult to balance without giving it a strong pet or paladin-ish combat abilities. The wizard, as a full caster, is strong enough on it's own, and so can afford to have a relatively weak pet.
> 
> As a wizard subclass, I'm fine with it, the UA version had some issues, but they seem to have been cleared up.



In the Dragon Talk from 20th of november, Jeremy Crawford talked about this, and did mention that a lot of feedback was about how the Archivist was "stepping on the Wizards toes".


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 26, 2020)

rohdester said:


> In the Dragon Talk from 20th of november, Jeremy Crawford talked about this, and did mention that a lot of feedback was about how the Archivist was "stepping on the Wizards toes".



Well, it wasn't me, I hated it for completely different reasons!

I think there is room for an artificer class that _is_ more wizard-like, but I don't think it can be effective on the current half-caster chassis. The Maverick in Exploring Eberron also tries and fails to do this.

Such a class really really needs to get higher level spells.


----------



## BigZebra (Nov 26, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I think there is room for an artificer class that _is_ more wizard-like



Yup, that I agree with.


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 26, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Well, it wasn't me, I hated it for completely different reasons!
> 
> I think there is room for an artificer class that _is_ more wizard-like, but I don't think it can be effective on the current half-caster chassis. The Maverick in Exploring Eberron also tries and fails to do this.
> 
> Such a class really really needs to get higher level spells.



Honestly, it seems like the easiest solution would be to give the Artificer something akin to the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum.


----------



## Azuresun (Nov 26, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I've been slowly working my way through the book, and I just don't get  the idea that these subclasses are "uninspired"
> 
> A truly feral barbarian who expresses animalistic fighting styles
> A cleric of harsh law and order, a cleric of the dusk and night sky seeking to protect the flock
> All the druids, spore and flame speaking towards the natural cycle of life, death, rebirth. The star druids focusing not only on the original druidic imagery but focusing on the natural world above instead of just the forest.




I'm the same--there's a lot of cool stuff here that I'm looking forward to using in some capacity. Again, I think a lot of it comes down to people having spoiled their appetite with the UA versions.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 26, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Honestly, it seems like the easiest solution would be to give the Artificer something akin to the Warlock's Mystic Arcanum.



Yeah, I've actually been working on something like that since I was disappointed by the Maverick.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 26, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I'm not sure where you are getting the information that the archivist was the most popular artificer subclass ever, since WotC don't publish poll results, but I thought it was horribly broken. "Wizard's toes" had nothing to do with it. The issue was the invulnerable combat pet that could trivialise any dungeon. Fortunately the wizard version significantly toned it down so it can no longer do a dungeon single handed.
> 
> I think the issue was, as a half caster the artificer is difficult to balance without giving it a strong pet or paladin-ish combat abilities. The wizard, as a full caster, is strong enough on it's own, and so can afford to have a relatively weak pet.
> 
> As a wizard subclass, I'm fine with it, the UA version had some issues, but they seem to have been cleared up.



I'm not sure exactly where or when they said it, but I think they mentioned something about it in this video. It was unbalanced, but they easily could have fixed it. 

The issues with the subclass weren't cleared up. They still get the damage-switching all the time, and a lot of other problems stayed the same.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 26, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Such a class really really needs to get higher level spells.



So, a 3/4th caster, then?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> Thanks for the deep review, it's very good, although I missed you mention the feats and alternate class features / free boosts.
> 
> I strongly object to your conclusion however:
> 
> ...



Nothing in the book is overpowered.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nothing in the book is overpowered.



_coughOrderoftheScribescough_


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Well, it wasn't me, I hated it for completely different reasons!
> 
> I think there is room for an artificer class that _is_ more wizard-like, but I don't think it can be effective on the current half-caster chassis. The Maverick in Exploring Eberron also tries and fails to do this.
> 
> Such a class really really needs to get higher level spells.



I was telling my wife, I think there should be  Artificer Infusions that let them cast specific level 6+ spells.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> _coughOrderoftheScribescough_



Nope. Not even close.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I was telling my wife, I think there should be  Artificer Infusions that let them cast specific level 6+ spells.



Elaborate?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

SkidAce said:


> Elaborate?



No!

Okay fine. 

A ring of XYZ that casts the XYZ spell once per day. Not available until after a Wizard would have that spell level, gives the artificer who takes it something like a warlock invocation that lets them cast a spell 1/LR.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I was telling my wife, I think there should be  Artificer Infusions that let them cast specific level 6+ spells.



Hmm. That could work, but would be a bit strange. I personally would do it like Mystic Arcanum, but you take it as an infusion. I don't know if I would give them up to 9th level spells from just one infusion, but maybe one for 6th-7th level spells and another (requiring the first infusion) that gives 8th-9th level spells? You could even have different spell lists that they have access to depending on the subclass you are, with Alchemists having Create Homunculus, Flesh to Stone, Harm, Heal, Create Magen, Regenerate, Resurrection, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, Animal Shapes, Clone, True Polymorph, Power Word Heal, True Resurrection and similar spells, with different spell lists for different artificers. I think that would be interesting.


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No!
> 
> Okay fine.
> 
> A ring of XYZ that casts the XYZ spell once per day. Not available until after a Wizard would have that spell level, gives the artificer who takes it something like a warlock invocation that lets them cast a spell 1/LR.



Would they be able to hand off that type of infused item?

This idea is interesting, because I like the artificer, but i hate the spell level limit.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nope. Not even close.



In comparison to Transmuted Spell, the ability to change damage types all the time with no cost is definitely OP.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

SkidAce said:


> Would they be able to hand off that type of infused item?
> 
> This idea is interesting, because I like the artificer, but i hate the spell level limit.



I agree. I want to be able to shoot lasers out of my armorer's gauntlets.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

SkidAce said:


> Would they be able to hand off that type of infused item?
> 
> This idea is interesting, because I like the artificer, but i hate the spell level limit.



That is the thorny part, but...probably. I mean, the power is someone on the team casting that spell every day, balance wise it doesn’t really matter who. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Hmm. That could work, but would be a bit strange. I personally would do it like Mystic Arcanum, but you take it as an infusion. I don't know if I would give them up to 9th level spells from just one infusion, but maybe one for 6th-7th level spells and another (requiring the first infusion) that gives 8th-9th level spells? You could even have different spell lists that they have access to depending on the subclass you are, with Alchemists having Create Homunculus, Flesh to Stone, Harm, Heal, Create Magen, Regenerate, Resurrection, Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, Animal Shapes, Clone, True Polymorph, Power Word Heal, True Resurrection and similar spells, with different spell lists for different artificers. I think that would be interesting.



Respectfully, I’d hate that. 

I’d focus mostly on spells that have an obvious or at least clearly appropriate item associated with them, and the Infusion is the item or an item related to it.

So Arcane Gate would be a key or a small model gate, blade barrier would be a long knife, heroes feast would be the bowl, etc. 

The key thing to me is, it’s an item.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> In comparison to Transmuted Spell, the ability to change damage types all the time with no cost is definitely OP.



Not at all. Not even by a generous stretch of the imagination. Damage type rarely actually matters, and when it does it matter less than just doing more damage or any other weird thing a Wizard can do. 

Transmute Spell is incredibly weak and limited. It’s basically garbage, and would be without the existence of the scribe. 

To be overpowered, a thing has to be outside the normal power band of the game, not just “much stronger than this very underpowered other thing”.

The scribe doesn’t outshine other Wizard Traditions, or other classes that aren’t on the bottom end of 5e’s pretty small power differential. It’s not remotely “OP”.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Not at all. Not even by a generous stretch of the imagination. *Damage type rarely actually matters*, and when it does it matter less than just doing more damage or any other weird thing a Wizard can do.



All of the creatures in the game that have a damage resistance, immunity, or vulnerability disagree with you. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Transmute Spell is incredibly weak and limited. It’s basically garbage, and would be without the existence of the scribe.



IMO, it's mostly weak because of the fact that it takes a metamagic slot from the sorcerers. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> The scribe doesn’t outshine other Wizard Traditions, or other classes that aren’t on the bottom end of 5e’s pretty small power differential. It’s not remotely “OP”.



I guess that I should have clarified that it was OP in comparison to the sorcerer's schtick. In comparison to other wizard subclasses, yeah it's not OP. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Nothing in the book is overpowered.



I do disagree that there aren't any things in the book that could be OP. Mountain Dwarves are even more OP now than before. Stars Druids probably aren't that OP, especially in comparison to Moon Druids, but they can be *very *powerful. Aberrant Mind Sorcerers (and Clockwork Sorcerers to a degree) are much, much, much more playable than other sorcerer subclasses, but that doesn't make them OP in the game, just in comparison to other subclasses they are OP.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Respectfully, I’d hate that.



Okay, then. I'll take my idea elsewhere.


doctorbadwolf said:


> The key thing to me is, it’s an item.



Respectfully, I would hate that. It would suck to not be able to cast a spell because you don't have a key or bowl on you.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> All of the creatures in the game that have a damage resistance, immunity, or vulnerability disagree with you.



No, they don’t. It’s a little extra or less damage. It doesn’t change the game. Resist/immune to nonmagical damage matters at low levels, and that’s about it. Very few characters have only one damage type, and even if they do the whole team won’t be in that boat, and it’s only 1 fight. It’s just not a big deal. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> IMO, it's mostly weak because of the fact that it takes a metamagic slot from the sorcerers.



It’s weak because of how limited it is, and it just isn’t worth spending a sorcery point on. 

I’d spend 1 point to make all my spells do a damage type until the end of my next turn, maybe. Maybe.
But then, yeah, I’d probably not take it as one of my very few metamagic options. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> I guess that I should have clarified that it was OP in comparison to the sorcerer's schtick. In comparison to other wizard subclasses, yeah it's not OP.
> 
> I do disagree that there aren't any things in the book that could be OP. Mountain Dwarves are even more OP now than before. Stars Druids probably aren't that OP, especially in comparison to Moon Druids, but they can be *very *powerful. Aberrant Mind Sorcerers (and Clockwork Sorcerers to a degree) are much, much, much more playable than other sorcerer subclasses, but that doesn't make them OP in the game, just in comparison to other subclasses they are OP.



I mean...you basically just said what I said but with more specifics of whether most powerful things in the book and how they...aren’t OP. I guess except mountain dews, but I disagree that they are or ever have been OP. 

I don’t think it makes sense to call things OP compared to XYZ. They’re either OP compared to the game at large, or they aren’t OP.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Okay, then. I'll take my idea elsewhere.
> 
> Respectfully, I would hate that. It would suck to not be able to cast a spell because you don't have a key or bowl on you.



The artificer is items. That’s the class. They already can’t cast spells because they don’t have tools on them. They already can’t use their other infusions because they don’t have the right items on them. It’s literally more of what the class is. 

And...you can’t ever cast Heroes Feast without the bowl, no matter who you are.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The artificer is items. That’s the class. They already can’t cast spells because they don’t have tools on them. They already can’t use their other infusions because they don’t have the right items on them. It’s literally more of what the class is.



But most of their infusions aren't restricted to certain items like that. It's normally a general item, like boots or armor or weapons or something like that. 


doctorbadwolf said:


> And...you can’t ever cast Heroes Feast without the bowl, no matter who you are.



Ah, sorry. I had never looked up the material component of that spell in my games. I've never had someone cast or take it before.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> But most of their infusions aren't restricted to certain items like that. It's normally a general item, like boots or armor or weapons or something like that.



If you want armor of tools, you have to have armor. If you want a Bowl of Heroes Feast, you have to have a bowl. Same thing.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Ah, sorry. I had never looked up the material component of that spell in my games. I've never had someone cast or take it before.



Tons of spells have a material component that can be leveraged in this way. It doesn't need to be complicated or restrictive, unless you're normally making artificers justify where they got a pair of gloves before they can infuse a gloves of missile snaring.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Nov 28, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> But most of their infusions aren't restricted to certain items like that.



I kinda missed this the first time. That is the source of the disconnect. I didn't say it would require a super specific item. I assumed it went without saying that it would work like other infusions. 

The Bowl of Heroes Feast would require a bowl. That's it. Now, normally the balance of that item is the cost of the consumed material component, so this infusion might come available later than others of the same spell level, to compensate, or it might be different in that it has a cost requirement for the item being infused, which still makes the artificer's heroes feast better than the druid's, but I'm fine with that. Probably. It's one spell, and it doesn't define anyone's spell list. Case by base basis, playtest before finalising, etc.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 28, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Damage type rarely actually matters



The artillerist in our recent Eberron campaign frequently found themselves doing half damage because of a heavy dependence on Firebolt.

It matters, especially for classes with a more limited spell selection.

And that is without mentioning the many subclasses who get bonuses for casting spells with a certain damage type.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 28, 2020)

I have finished and posted my idea for an artificer subclass with access to higher level spells: "3/4 caster" Artificer Subclass


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 28, 2020)

Other thought though regarding the Maverick subclass: is it a better subclass for a wizard multiclass? Or a redundant one? Because it seems like you could basically become a 3/4 caster that way.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 28, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Other thought though regarding the Maverick subclass: is it a better subclass for a wizard multiclass? Or a redundant one? Because it seems like you could basically become a 3/4 caster that way.



Yes, you can refluff a wizard as a caster-artificer with the Artificer Initiate feet, or a 1 or 3 level dip, losing 0 or 1 caster levels only.

Armorer looks particularly powergamey for that.
_
"Full Plate and packing spells!"_


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 28, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Yes, you can refluff a wizard as a caster-artificer with the Artificer Initiate feet, or a 1 or 3 level dip, losing 0 or 1 caster levels only.



That's not what I am asking.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 28, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Other thought though regarding the Maverick subclass: is it a better subclass for a wizard multiclass? Or a redundant one? Because it seems like you could basically become a 3/4 caster that way.




I think it would be redundant. The maverick eventually gains access to all spells (or close enough) so the only thing the wizard would be offering is the spellbook and special ritual casting. 

Unless I'm missing something?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 29, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> That's not what I am asking.



Sorry, miss-read your post. I don't think there is much to gain going wizard/maverick. You would be better stopping at one level of artificer.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 29, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I think it would be redundant. The maverick eventually gains access to all spells (or close enough) so the only thing the wizard would be offering is the spellbook and special ritual casting.
> 
> Unless I'm missing something?



Higher level spells. Maverick never gets any spells over level 5, and even that isn't until level 17. You gain fewer extra spells from being a maverick than you lose by locking yourself out of higher level spell lists.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 29, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Higher level spells. Maverick never gets any spells over level 5, and even that isn't until level 17. You gain fewer extra spells from being a maverick than you lose by locking yourself out of higher level spell lists.




I was answering from the perspective of majority Maverick, dash of wizard. And under that assumption you still don't get higher level spells. Not until you've taken the majority of your class in wizard.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 30, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> I was answering from the perspective of majority Maverick, dash of wizard. And under that assumption you still don't get higher level spells. Not until you've taken the majority of your class in wizard.



Doesn't work, whichever way you run it.

Maverick 3/wizard 17. Least bad option, you postpone your spells by one level in exchange for one cantrip and one spell from one other class list. About the only thing you might want to pick up with this that you can't get with a feat is INT Shillelagh for a bladesinger. Taking more levels of maverick just means giving up more caster levels for - sod all really.


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Higher level spells. Maverick never gets any spells over level 5, and even that isn't until level 17. You gain fewer extra spells from being a maverick than you lose by locking yourself out of higher level spell lists.



I'm not sure if they are that much of a game-changer though when the artificer's entire schtick from 3e onwards has been versatility through breadth over depth. This was one reason why the 3e artificer was considered a Tier 1 class despite only being a 2/3 caster.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 30, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if they are that much of a game-changer though when the artificer's entire schtick from 3e onwards has been versatility through breadth over depth.



My experience is that people choose to play artificers because they want to blow shtuff up. Which artificers don't do as well as wizards and sorcerers.


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> My experience is that people choose to play artificers because they want to blow shtuff up. Which artificers don't do as well as wizards and sorcerers.



Then they should be directed to wizards and sorcerers while educated on the respective reasons to play the artificer. The artificer is meant to be a flexible gadgeteer and utility caster rather than the blaster-caster.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 30, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Then they should be directed to wizards and sorcerers while educated on the respective reasons to play the artificer. The artificer is meant to be a flexible gadgeteer and utility caster rather than the blaster-caster.



Artificer as written is a gish. It's pretty much a reskin ranger.

Tasha seems to think artificers are for blowing stuff up: _"Artificers invent cutting-edge problems, then try to solve them—loudly and often with collateral damage" _- Tasha


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Artificer as written is a gish. It's pretty much a reskin ranger.



Its spell list is not designed for either a gish or a blaster caster. It's clearly designed for a utility fill-in caster. The artificer does not get a baked-in Extra Attack either. It only gets EA through two* of its subclasses: the armorer and the battle smith. 

* Three counting the Forge Adept in EE.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 30, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Its spell list is not designed for either a gish or a blaster caster. It's clearly designed for a utility fill-in caster. The artificer does not get a baked-in Extra Attack either. It only gets EA through two* of its subclasses: the armorer and the battle smith.
> 
> * Three counting the Forge Adept in EE.



There are plenty of gish spells post-tasha's, especially taking into account artificers are heavily dependant on cantrips because they don't get many spell slots.

The armourer, battle smith and forge adept are the only subclasses worth playing. The artillerist is okay if you just want to stand around spamming temp hp at everyone.


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> There are plenty of gish spells post-tasha's, especially taking into account artificers are heavily dependant on cantrips.



I was reading the artificer spell list in Tasha's. Cantrip dependency moves the Artificer closer to the Warlock than the Ranger/Paladin in that regard. But its spell list is still not about blowing stuff up as per your assertion. 



> The armourer, battle smith and forge adept are the only subclasses worth playing. The artillerist is okay if you just want to stand around spamming temp hp at everyone.



That's certainly your opinion based on your cognitive biases and presuppositions about what the class should be about. You've just not done a good job convincing me that's true.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Nov 30, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> Cantrip dependency moves the Artificer closer to the Warlock than the Ranger/Paladin in that regard.



Artificer's best cantrips are melee range, Warlocks are strongest from a distance.

Artificers are exactly one level ahead of rangers and paladins in terms of spell slots.


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Artificer's best cantrips are melee range, Warlocks are strongest from a distance.



Their best cantrip from melee range are things like Guidance and Shocking Grasp, a cantrip for disengaging combat. But the primary cantrip recommended for all Artificers, apart from Guidance, is Firebolt. Green-Flame Blade requires a weapon attack, and only the Battle Smith and Forge Adept give Martial Weapon Proficiency. If you want to argue that these two subclasses are gishes, then you "win" that non-argument. But arguing that the Artificer is a gish on that basis is a separate argument entirely. 



> Artificers are exactly one level ahead of rangers and paladins in terms of spell slots.



Okay? But that doesn't make them gishes. It makes them half-casters which makes this a somewhat banal point to make.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 30, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> My experience is that people choose to play artificers because they want to blow shtuff up. Which artificers don't do as well as wizards and sorcerers.




Hmm, I don't know. The Artillerist is a solid blaster. Adding an extra d8 to every spell you cast at 5th level is basically "upcast every damage dealing spell for free" which is very solid.

I mean, by 5th level you are casting 11th level cantrips, and have access to some solid AOEs to buff.

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



Aldarc said:


> Its spell list is not designed for either a gish or a blaster caster. It's clearly designed for a utility fill-in caster. The artificer does not get a baked-in Extra Attack either. It only gets EA through two* of its subclasses: the armorer and the battle smith.
> 
> * Three counting the Forge Adept in EE.




They are best at utility, yes, but don't forget that the subclasses have spell lists too. Artillerist gets Thunderwave, Shatter, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Ice Storm, Cone of Cold. 

The core artificer is support, Armorer and Battlesmith (as well as Forge Adept from Exploring Eberron) are clearly designed with gishiness in mind, and the Arterillerist adds blasting to the pile. Maybe not the end all be all of blasting, but solid blasting. 

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



Paul Farquhar said:


> Artificer's best cantrips are melee range, Warlocks are strongest from a distance.
> 
> Artificers are exactly one level ahead of rangers and paladins in terms of spell slots.




I'd disagree, Artificers have a lot of excellent ranged cantrips. 

Sure, the Armorer, Forge Adept and Battle Smith might want to use the melee cantrips, but then they are giving up their extra attack, which is a tough sell. And the Artillerist really has no real reason to want to be in melee at all unless desperate to off-tank. 


And that is one thing I do agree with on the "gishiness" front, Artificers are pretty heavily armored for a caster. With a single infusion they can reliably hit AC 20 (all of them) or 21 (armorer) which makes them feel much safer on the front lines than a warlock would.


----------



## Aldarc (Nov 30, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> They are best at utility, yes, but don't forget that the subclasses have spell lists too. Artillerist gets Thunderwave, Shatter, Scorching Ray, Fireball, Ice Storm, Cone of Cold.
> 
> The core artificer is support, Armorer and Battlesmith (as well as Forge Adept from Exploring Eberron) are clearly designed with gishiness in mind, and the Arterillerist adds blasting to the pile. Maybe not the end all be all of blasting, but solid blasting.



True enough, but these typically come in at much slower and later rate than with full casters. An Artillerist can't Fireball a room four levels after a wizard or sorcerer could, at 9th level, which is on the precipice of when most games end. And while the Armorer and Battlesmith are designed with gishiness in mind - a non-argument from me - most of that does not come through their spells but through their subclass features.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Nov 30, 2020)

Aldarc said:


> True enough, but these typically come in at much slower and later rate than with full casters. An Artillerist can't Fireball a room four levels after a wizard or sorcerer could, at 9th level, which is on the precipice of when most games end. And while the Armorer and Battlesmith are designed with gishiness in mind - a non-argument from me - most of that does not come through their spells but through their subclass features.




Completely fair, but the Artillerist casting fireball at 9th level is dealing 8d6+1d8, essentially making it a 4th level fireball, which the other classes couldn't do until 2 levels ago. 

The best blasters? No. But decent at it for an arcane half-caster? I think so.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Dec 1, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Hmm, I don't know. The Artillerist is a solid blaster. Adding an extra d8 to every spell you cast at 5th level is basically "upcast every damage dealing spell for free" which is very solid.



Artificers only get two cantrips, so even though our level 5 artillerist had a an impressive 2d10+1d8 firebolt, frequently it was really only doing half that, because every other monster has fire resistance and they had no other attack cantrips.

And their best AoE was 4d8 _shatter_, which isn't even close to the 8d6 _fireball_ wizards and sorcerers (and some clerics and warlocks) get at the same level.



> the Artillerist really has no real reason to want to be in melee at all unless desperate to off-tank.



Post-Tasha's the (level 5) Artillerist can wade into melee with a _booming blade_ staff doing 1d6+1+strength bonus+2d8 (+2d8) damage on a hit then let off a _sword burst_, doing 2d6+1d8 damage to all enemies within 5 ft. with their portable shield generator dishing out temp hp as required.

That's how I would play it, but I'm the DM so I can't tell the players how to play their characters.


----------



## Helldritch (Dec 1, 2020)

The articers are good fifth wheelers. Just like the bards were in 2ed and 3ed. They can blast and heal and can even cast ritual. It through their infusion that they can shine. The two artificiers that I have seen in my games both took two different damage cantrips.  They get their third cantrip at level 10, which is a bit late but it can be bypassed with magic initiate, wizard. Raising their cantrip to 4 (5 ar 10th level) with an added bonus of a first level wizard spell (shield was taken in both cases...).

They do not excel at healing or blasting in the early levels, but their versatility and the fact that they can have more than decent AC makes them viable and a good addition to a party.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 1, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Artificers only get two cantrips, so even though our level 5 artillerist had a an impressive 2d10+1d8 firebolt, frequently it was really only doing half that, because every other monster has fire resistance and they had no other attack cantrips.
> 
> And their best AoE was 4d8 _shatter_, which isn't even close to the 8d6 _fireball_ wizards and sorcerers (and some clerics and warlocks) get at the same level.




Well, my artillerist used Ray of Frost for 3d8 damage and we never faced a single enemy resistant to cold damage. 

Sure, if you end up with resistance, you end up hurting, but not everyone runs into that. 

And, sure Shatter for 4d8 is less than fireball for 8d6. But, in your specific example you said you had a lot of fire resistant enemies, so that Fireball was only doing an average of 14 damage (28/2) while the shatter was doing 18. 

And, again, I'm not saying they are the best at blasting, I'm just saying they are pretty good.



Paul Farquhar said:


> Post-Tasha's the (level 5) Artillerist can wade into melee with a _booming blade_ staff doing 1d6+1+strength bonus+2d8 (+2d8) damage on a hit then let off a _sword burst_, doing 2d6+1d8 damage to all enemies within 5 ft. with their portable shield generator dishing out temp hp as required.
> 
> That's how I would play it, but I'm the DM so I can't tell the players how to play their characters.




If you are planning to go into melee, why not take an armorer instead? Sure, if you have a decent strength you might hit with your staff, but Armorer or Battlesmith will use INT and superior weapons, and the Armorer will have Heavy Armor to keep you way safer. Plus Extra Attack. 1d6+2d8+1+str mod is okay, but 3d8+3+int mod x2 (with dual-wielding feat if the DM says it is necessary) is equally nice, and doesn't take any of your cantrips (yes, it takes a feat if you want to dual-wield, I know, but the benefit of potentially marking three enemies is a good trade for the Armorer I think) 

I mean, you do you, it sounds like a fun build, just not what I'd do with it.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 1, 2020)

Helldritch said:


> The articers are good fifth wheelers. Just like the bards were in 2ed and 3ed. They can blast and heal and can even cast ritual. It through their infusion that they can shine.* The two artificiers that I have seen in my games both took two different damage cantrips. * They get their third cantrip at level 10, which is a bit late but it can be bypassed with magic initiate, wizard. Raising their cantrip to 4 (5 ar 10th level) with an added bonus of a first level wizard spell (shield was taken in both cases...).
> 
> They do not excel at healing or blasting in the early levels, but their versatility and the fact that they can have more than decent AC makes them viable and a good addition to a party.




Personally, I think this is a bit of a waste. 

The Battle Smith and Artillerist can really get a lot of mileage out of Mending for healing their companions, so I've always taken one damage cantrip and mending.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Dec 1, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> If you are planning to go into melee, why not take an armorer instead? Sure, if you have a decent strength you might hit with your staff, but Armorer or Battlesmith will use INT and superior weapons, and the Armorer will have Heavy Armor to keep you way safer. Plus Extra Attack. 1d6+2d8+1+str mod is okay, but 3d8+3+int mod x2 (with dual-wielding feat if the DM says it is necessary) is equally nice, and doesn't take any of your cantrips (yes, it takes a feat if you want to dual-wield, I know, but the benefit of potentially marking three enemies is a good trade for the Armorer I think)
> 
> I mean, you do you, it sounds like a fun build, just not what I'd do with it.



What I would _actually_ do is have start out as a small battlesmith and duel class to bladesinger after level 3 and ride into battle on my robo-steed bladesinging with a lance*.

Unfortunately, I am stuck being the DM so no shenanigans for me...  


*Do you think duel lances would be pushing my luck?


----------



## Helldritch (Dec 1, 2020)

That is why they take magic initiate. To get two damage cantrips in addition to their own cantrips... And if they don't have any companions, as it is entirely possible (the two chose alchemist as their starting subclasses) then mending is a bit meh as a choice. Versatility of damage type is prefered in that case. And the newer Armorer does not even have a pet? Why would he choose mending? But for an Artillist and a Battle smith, mending is a must. Thus, adding two cantrips makes for a great versatility of damage types.


----------



## Helldritch (Dec 1, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> What I would _actually_ do is have start out as a small battlesmith and duel class to bladesinger after level 3 and ride into battle on my robo-steed bladesinging with a lance*.
> 
> Unfortunately, I am stuck being the DM so no shenanigans for me...
> 
> ...



Go for dual spears! Use long spears and you're set. 
And no, you don't push your luck as a DM. Ever...


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Dec 1, 2020)

The changes to the homunculus make it an attractive option for alchemist and armorer. So mending for that.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 2, 2020)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The changes to the homunculus make it an attractive option for alchemist and armorer. So mending for that.




Agreed. letting it come on at level 1 is an awesome change. 

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



Helldritch said:


> That is why they take magic initiate. To get two damage cantrips in addition to their own cantrips... And if they don't have any companions, as it is entirely possible (the two chose alchemist as their starting subclasses) then mending is a bit meh as a choice. Versatility of damage type is prefered in that case. And the newer Armorer does not even have a pet? Why would he choose mending? But for an Artillist and a Battle smith, mending is a must. Thus, adding two cantrips makes for a great versatility of damage types.




I truly do not like the base Alchemist, and the Armorer is new, so I'm used to seeing Artillerist or Battlesmith's. 

And yeah, if you can afford to get more cantrips, it is certainly worth it to spread your damage types around a bit, but I also wouldn't forget that you can use a heavy repeating crossbow as well, and potentially a magical one if you find your damage type choice not stacking up. 

Not sure which I'd prefer to be honest, depends on what I was doing with the character


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 2, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> level 1



Level 2, actually. Small nitpick, though. 


Chaosmancer said:


> I truly do not like the base Alchemist



I agree. The base alchemist is bad.


----------



## Helldritch (Dec 2, 2020)

Well, players liked the alchemist so far. I see no problems with the class. It is balanced and does its job surprisingly well. A bit more support than the other two, three now, but it is still a good class. I guess it depends on what you want your artifice to be...


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 2, 2020)

Helldritch said:


> Well, players liked the alchemist so far. I see no problems with the class. It is balanced and does its job surprisingly well. A bit more support than the other two, three now, but it is still a good class. I guess it depends on what you want your artifice to be...




I just don't like how the base feature (the elixir) is far and away worse than the features of the Artillerist or the Battlesmith (the turret and steel defender respectively) 

The elixir recharges with a spell slot, then takes at least a single action from the party to use, and it is usable once. 

The turret has the same recharge cost, lasts for an hour, uses a bonus action, and can activate its effect multiple times.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 2, 2020)

Helldritch said:


> Well, players liked the alchemist so far. I see no problems with the class. It is balanced and does its job surprisingly well. A bit more support than the other two, three now, but it is still a good class. I guess it depends on what you want your artifice to be...



It's as bad as the Wild Magic Sorcerer, in the sense that they don't even get to choose what their subclass grants them. It's all based on rolling on a table.

The Wild Magic Barbarian is way better than the Alchemist, as all of the random benefits are very good, none of them negatively effect themselves or the party and are all useful, and the benefits are free additions to their rage. However, the Alchemist has to give spell slots.

Also, unlike the Battle Smith and Artillerist who can choose to use their spell slots for their options, the Alchemist completely relies on expending their spell slots to be able to do their whole schtick. Battle Smiths and Artillerists can freely do their subclass's main feature, while an alchemist has to roll the dice and hope they get the benefit they want. If they don't, they have to expend spell slots to do the very thing they're supposed to be an expert at.

Compared to any other artificer subclass, the Alchemist is underwhelming. That's the nicest way I can describe it.


----------



## Helldritch (Dec 2, 2020)

As is, yeah... I forgot that I had remove the random thing as soon as I had seen it. The player chooses the buff and it is very good this way
 Not overpowered but really strong. 

And alchemy is a strong skill in my games. So the alchemist has quite a good spotlight.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 2, 2020)

Helldritch said:


> As is, yeah... I forgot that I had remove the random thing as soon as I had seen it. The player chooses the buff and it is very good this way
> Not overpowered but really strong.
> 
> And alchemy is a strong skill in my games. So the alchemist has quite a good spotlight.



Ah, that explains why you like it. I think there are two ways to fix the subclass. The first way is to do what you did, and the second would be to up the amount of elixirs they get for free. (I personally do that they get an amount of elixirs equal to their proficiency bonus. It works well.)


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 2, 2020)

Helldritch said:


> As is, yeah... I forgot that I had remove the random thing as soon as I had seen it. The player chooses the buff and it is very good this way
> Not overpowered but really strong.
> 
> And alchemy is a strong skill in my games. So the alchemist has quite a good spotlight.




Yeah, getting more focus on the tools is great, that's why I'm always looking for good 3pp materials to use for crafting tables.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Dec 2, 2020)

Chaosmancer said:


> Yeah, getting more focus on the tools is great, that's why I'm always looking for good 3pp materials to use for crafting tables.



Yeah. I always let my artificer characters use their tools in downtime.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Dec 2, 2020)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Ah, that explains why you like it. I think there are two ways to fix the subclass. The first way is to do what you did, and the second would be to up the amount of elixirs they get for free. (I personally do that they get an amount of elixirs equal to their proficiency bonus. It works well.)




How about an INT check using alchemy supplies to see if they get the elixir they want, on a failure they get a random one? I'd say DC 10 might be too easy on that, DC 15 might be a bit too hard. Maybe DC 12? A bit chancy early on, but by higher levels it should be pretty easy to succeed on most attempts. This would make the player a bit more invested in the process through making a check instead of it being entirely random or entirely the player's choice.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Dec 2, 2020)

For my FR campaign I have ruled that alchemists know how to make smokepowder weapons. Other artificers can use them but they can't make them.


----------



## wicked cool (Dec 2, 2020)

once the pandemic is over and I show up to my flgs and sit down to play in league play will there be negative effects on PHB characters from Tasha (assuming Tasha will part of league play)


----------



## jasper (Dec 2, 2020)

wicked cool said:


> once the pandemic is over and I show up to my flgs and sit down to play in league play will there be negative effects on PHB characters from Tasha (assuming Tasha will part of league play)



Tasha is part of Season 10 the current season. No word yet of Legacy Season play can have it. Well except for the floating stat thingy. I have three pcs from Tasha in my Icewind Dale.. After 2 sessions I not seeing anything out of whack.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Dec 2, 2020)

wicked cool said:


> once the pandemic is over and I show up to my flgs and sit down to play in league play will there be negative effects on PHB characters from Tasha (assuming Tasha will part of league play)




No? 

Nothing in Tasha's takes anything away, so I can't see how it could possibly negatively affect PHB characters. It is all optional additions.


----------

