This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: Just saw a flipthrough of Tasha's big bucket of unearthed arcana on youtube  (Read 2241 times)

theOutlander

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
... and recalling many MANY comments on the internet hyped to the roof about the new "options", I get to wonder - has the 5e crowd gotten brain dead or something?

The book has some new sub-classes (pulled from UA), magic tattoos (oh boy, more spell-like character features), magic items, group patrons, making spells personalized, and some more. Apart from the content copy/pasted from unearthed arcana, most of the new guidelines is just stuff we've used to make up on our own. Like the spell customization - visually your magic missile can be a bunch of chickens now (omg, how cool and nouveau is that?!).

I won't go in more detail because I don't have time and will just continue to rant, but it seems this book solidifies my feelings that wotc and the 5e mass marked are locked in a cycle of regression. There is rampant churning and spoon-feeding of "player options" and half-baked rules that consist of a weak random table and a paragraph or two. And it seems that people crave for that stuff like it's the next ten commandments. I won't be surprised if some years from now, on a table somewhere, players are going through the books to see if it's allowed to have a house cat as a familiar.

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.

David Johansen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 5377
    • View Profile
- visually your magic missile can be a bunch of ethnically and genderally diverse chickens now (omg, how cool and nouveau is that?!).

Fixed that for you.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http:/www.uncouthsavage.com!

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3301
    • View Profile
I like the book and I got it in the mail yesterday.

It's mostly the new subclasses I like, and the magic items.

Of course the subclasses were first introduced in UA - that is the entire purpose of UA. They're not the same as the UA versions because they used feedback they received from the UA surveys to tweak them to be better. Which was the point. UA isn't Dragon Magazine, it's the beta testing.

The magic items are both interesting and fill some gaps that existed in the game. I am very pleased with those.

Adapting spells to your tastes is what, a few paragraphs? Who cares. It's just a reminder to new players they should do that, and some examples. Remember, 5e is a majority NEW PLAYERS these days. Because it's been such a massive seller. This book by the way is in the top 10 of all books being sold on Amazon (it's the #4 best selling book in the nation as I type this). Us as old players have always done this, but new players might not even have thought of it yet.


Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.
Yeah, my game system handled that with a one paragraph on “Signature Spells.” It also meant I didn’t need to waste a bunch of page count on fluff text descriptions either (just need flavorful names) so it’s absolutely a win-win.

theOutlander

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
I like the book and I got it in the mail yesterday.
I'm generalizing a bit, so no offense.

It's mostly the new subclasses I like, and the magic items.
Both of which I'm fed up with, but that's personal opinion.

Of course the subclasses were first introduced in UA - that is the entire purpose of UA. They're not the same as the UA versions because they used feedback they received from the UA surveys to tweak them to be better. Which was the point. UA isn't Dragon Magazine, it's the beta testing.
Yeah, I'm not that against reprints, just have a really, really "meh" stance towards them.

The magic items are both interesting and fill some gaps that existed in the game. I am very pleased with those.
Which implies there is a mechanical void that needs to be filled with WOTCCC (WOTC Certified Content, TM). And this is where shit hits the fan, because it seems it's the default view of the 5e player (again, generally it seems).

Adapting spells to your tastes is what, a few paragraphs? Who cares. It's just a reminder to new players they should do that, and some examples. Remember, 5e is a majority NEW PLAYERS these days. Because it's been such a massive seller. This book by the way is in the top 10 of all books being sold on Amazon (it's the #4 best selling book in the nation as I type this). Us as old players have always done this, but new players might not even have thought of it yet.
I bet it's because of the racial bonuses and the hype circlejerk. I really can't find anything useful in there except more of the same stuff. And the constant friendly reminder that "btw you can to X in the game!" is indeed dumbing down the populace. I mean, yes, everyone needs some advice when starting with the hobby, but it becomes silly (and far too overdue, like... 6 years overdue) at this point and furthermore WOTC contradict themselves by stating that you should have creativity, but at the same time you shoud "BUY THIS BOOK WHERE WE RESKINNED SOME STUFF AND SAID OBVIOUS THINGS THAT PEOPLE ON YOUTUBE DO 2h+ VIDEOS ABOUT". Ok, I got carried a bit here, but spell customization is really low ball, you know it. And is just the tip of the iceberg.

Anyway, my point (or rather two points) is that too many options stifle creativity and WOTC are cheesing it at this point.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 14477
    • View Profile
Dont have it yet and on the fence as to wether or not to get it considering WOTCs antics lately.

But something to keep in mind. This stuff is playtested. Im one of those playtesters and what ends up in a book is the end result of feedback from playtesters. Hence why the artificer class got a complete overhaul TWICE!

Also alot of the stuff in these books are things the players asked for.

Its the same as in the TSR era. Alot of the things people complain about are in fact things players asked for and/or submitted.

TJS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 569
    • View Profile
I won't go in more detail because I don't have time and will just continue to rant, but it seems this book solidifies my feelings that wotc and the 5e mass marked are locked in a cycle of regression. There is rampant churning and spoon-feeding of "player options" and half-baked rules that consist of a weak random table and a paragraph or two. And it seems that people crave for that stuff like it's the next ten commandments. I won't be surprised if some years from now, on a table somewhere, players are going through the books to see if it's allowed to have a house cat as a familiar.
Ha.  Yes.  It's like watching an old friend slowly fall of the wagon after their hard fought recovery.  Thing like subclass bloat, loosening of race design, reprinting old material as stealth errata.  It's taken them a while and it's been happening in slow motion but more and more of the mentality of 4E has been creeping back in.

They've apparently lost interest in the short rest design from the core book and now almost everything is a daily (long rest) resource.  The idea of leaving things up to the DM has apparently been forgotten (hence the errata) and then the sage advice rulings clarifying their errata.

Murphy78

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.

You're right, it's a very old concept. I remember that spell "personalization" already was in Gaz 3: The Principalities of Glantri. Maybe is even  older than that.

Also, about subclasses: I remember the chaos that "kits" brought to AD&D 2nd. Fighter kits were ok, bard one were...no comment. I guess that is the usual splatbook degeneration cycle.
A big: No, thanks.

If I start something with 5e, I'm going to outlaw everything outside corebooks and also dragonborn and tiefling.
The Pundit in a video suggested that one should only play humans. He's got a point, but I'm such a sucker for dwarves that I'm keeping the core classes.




« Last Edit: November 19, 2020, 05:58:13 am by Murphy78 »

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 1378
    • View Profile
If I start something with 5e, I'm going to outlaw everything outside corebooks and also dragonborn and tiefling.
The Pundit in a video suggested that one should only play humans. He's got a point, but I'm such a sucker for dwarves that I'm keeping the core classes.
I’d strongly suggest Xanathar’s Guide to Everything as a “Core+1” as it has a number of archetypal subclasses they just didn’t have room for in the core book while still keeping the overall number of options to something manageable.

That said, I’ve got my own system now (still writing the new GM advice/tools section, but otherwise fully playable) so I doubt I’ll ever be touching anything 5e (or the inevitable 6e; one class, one race, sixty-seven gender options) again.

So, if you ever do decide to start something with 5e, as a counter proposal, contact me and I’ll either get you the playtest document, the pre-release draft or direct you to buy my book depending on where I’m at in the process when you do.

Blankman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Just saw a flipthrough of Tasha's big bucket of unearthed arcana on youtube
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2020, 10:12:29 am »
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.

You're right, it's a very old concept. I remember that spell "personalization" already was in Gaz 3: The Principalities of Glantri. Maybe is even  older than that.

Also, about subclasses: I remember the chaos that "kits" brought to AD&D 2nd. Fighter kits were ok, bard one were...no comment. I guess that is the usual splatbook degeneration cycle.
A big: No, thanks.

If I start something with 5e, I'm going to outlaw everything outside corebooks and also dragonborn and tiefling.
The Pundit in a video suggested that one should only play humans. He's got a point, but I'm such a sucker for dwarves that I'm keeping the core classes.

I mean, we have dwarves (or little people) in reality, so you should still be able to play one in an all humans campaign.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 2700
    • View Profile
Re: Just saw a flipthrough of Tasha's big bucket of unearthed arcana on youtube
« Reply #11 on: November 19, 2020, 10:50:56 am »
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.

You're right, it's a very old concept. I remember that spell "personalization" already was in Gaz 3: The Principalities of Glantri. Maybe is even  older than that.

Also, about subclasses: I remember the chaos that "kits" brought to AD&D 2nd. Fighter kits were ok, bard one were...no comment. I guess that is the usual splatbook degeneration cycle.
A big: No, thanks.

If I start something with 5e, I'm going to outlaw everything outside corebooks and also dragonborn and tiefling.
The Pundit in a video suggested that one should only play humans. He's got a point, but I'm such a sucker for dwarves that I'm keeping the core classes.

I mean, we have dwarves (or little people) in reality, so you should still be able to play one in an all humans campaign.
There are no dwarves in reality; there are dwarfs, but those are entirely different.

Blankman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Just saw a flipthrough of Tasha's big bucket of unearthed arcana on youtube
« Reply #12 on: November 19, 2020, 11:41:18 am »
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.

You're right, it's a very old concept. I remember that spell "personalization" already was in Gaz 3: The Principalities of Glantri. Maybe is even  older than that.

Also, about subclasses: I remember the chaos that "kits" brought to AD&D 2nd. Fighter kits were ok, bard one were...no comment. I guess that is the usual splatbook degeneration cycle.
A big: No, thanks.

If I start something with 5e, I'm going to outlaw everything outside corebooks and also dragonborn and tiefling.
The Pundit in a video suggested that one should only play humans. He's got a point, but I'm such a sucker for dwarves that I'm keeping the core classes.

I mean, we have dwarves (or little people) in reality, so you should still be able to play one in an all humans campaign.
There are no dwarves in reality; there are dwarfs, but those are entirely different.

Lighten up, Francis.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 2700
    • View Profile
Re: Just saw a flipthrough of Tasha's big bucket of unearthed arcana on youtube
« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2020, 11:44:18 am »
You're not wrong. Some of this stuff is just silly. The spell customization in particular makes me snort, because I've had a policy that spells (at least in D&D) always have SOME level of variance from caster to caster. Spellcraft and arcana checks are just able to determine the common aspects from spell to spell and identify them.

You're right, it's a very old concept. I remember that spell "personalization" already was in Gaz 3: The Principalities of Glantri. Maybe is even  older than that.

Also, about subclasses: I remember the chaos that "kits" brought to AD&D 2nd. Fighter kits were ok, bard one were...no comment. I guess that is the usual splatbook degeneration cycle.
A big: No, thanks.

If I start something with 5e, I'm going to outlaw everything outside corebooks and also dragonborn and tiefling.
The Pundit in a video suggested that one should only play humans. He's got a point, but I'm such a sucker for dwarves that I'm keeping the core classes.

I mean, we have dwarves (or little people) in reality, so you should still be able to play one in an all humans campaign.
There are no dwarves in reality; there are dwarfs, but those are entirely different.

Lighten up, Francis.
That was a joke, son.

Mercurius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: Just saw a flipthrough of Tasha's big bucket of unearthed arcana on youtube
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2020, 02:39:02 pm »
... and recalling many MANY comments on the internet hyped to the roof about the new "options", I get to wonder - has the 5e crowd gotten brain dead or something?

The book has some new sub-classes (pulled from UA), magic tattoos (oh boy, more spell-like character features), magic items, group patrons, making spells personalized, and some more. Apart from the content copy/pasted from unearthed arcana, most of the new guidelines is just stuff we've used to make up on our own. Like the spell customization - visually your magic missile can be a bunch of chickens now (omg, how cool and nouveau is that?!).

I won't go in more detail because I don't have time and will just continue to rant, but it seems this book solidifies my feelings that wotc and the 5e mass marked are locked in a cycle of regression. There is rampant churning and spoon-feeding of "player options" and half-baked rules that consist of a weak random table and a paragraph or two. And it seems that people crave for that stuff like it's the next ten commandments. I won't be surprised if some years from now, on a table somewhere, players are going through the books to see if it's allowed to have a house cat as a familiar.

This product doesn't inspire me enough to pick it up, but you're a little off-base here. Yes, 5E assumes far less house-ruling, and in general WotC D&D has been more RAW - or rather the player base is, despite every edition mentioning some variation of "rule zero."

But this is the first real player's options book in three years, since Xanathar's in 2017. Over the last three years, the yearly formula seems to be: 1-2 setting books, 1-2 story arcs, and 1 rules supplement of some kind, be it a player's option book, a monster book, etc.

My guess is that the next player's option book will be psionics oriented, probably in 2022 or 2023. Next year the supplement will probably be monsters (planar?).

So what they're "churning out" are stories and worlds, and supplementing with the occasional monster or player's option book.