D&D 5E Are proficiency swaps too strong for some races?

[ScuroNotte]

You can swap out armor or a weapon for a weapon or tool. In the example, an elf can swap a long sword for a tool as per page 8. So if a player playing an Elf martial character who already gains martial weapons through the class, can swap the 4 weapons (longsword, shortsword, shortbow, longbow) for 4 tools. Or a martial Mountain Dwarf character can exchange 4 weapons and 2 armor proficiencies for 6 tools.
Or am I over reacting.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

JFC, this is blatantly absurd. It was not a problem before.

And a gun is causing no problems until someone gets shot by it. By your logic, it must be the fault of the person who got shot that they died, right? They came later, and there was no issue until they came, so it's obviously their fault.

P.S. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. I really do not appreciate it, especially when it is unneeded and was unprovoked.

 

[tetrasodium]

JFC, this is blatantly absurd. It was not a problem before.

Yes it is absurd. You are confusing a the presence of defect wit the severity of that defect. You can tread more about the difference here

Or if your averse to clicking links...

Spoiler: here works too

SOFTWARE TESTING Fundamentals
All code is guilty until proven innocent.
Software Testing Fundamentals (STF) ! - SOFTWARE TESTING Fundamentals

Defect Severity​

DEFECT SEVERITY, also known as Bug Severity, is a classification of software defect (bug) to indicate the degree of negative impact on the quality of software.
ISTQB Definition

• severity: The degree of impact that a defect has on the development or operation of a component or system.

Classification​

The actual terminologies, and their meaning, can vary depending on people, projects, organizations, or defect tracking tools, but the following is a normally accepted classification.

• Critical: The defect affects critical functionality or critical data. It does not have a workaround. Example: Unsuccessful installation, complete failure of a feature.
• Major: The defect affects major functionality or major data. It has a workaround but is not obvious and is difficult. Example: A feature is not functional from one module but the task is doable if 10 complicated indirect steps are followed in another module/s.
• Minor: The defect affects minor functionality or non-critical data. It has an easy workaround. Example: A minor feature that is not functional in one module but the same task is easily doable from another module.
• Trivial: The defect does not affect functionality or data. It does not even need a workaround. It does not impact productivity or efficiency. It is merely an inconvenience. Example: Petty layout discrepancies, spelling/grammatical errors.

Severity is also denoted as:

• S1 = Critical
• S2 = Major
• S3 = Minor
• S4 = Trivial

Caution​

Defect Severity is one of the most common causes of feuds between Testers and Developers. A typical situation is where a Tester classifies the Severity of Defect as Critical or Major but the Developer refuses to accept that: He/she believes that the defect is of Minor or Trivial severity.
Though we have provided you some guidelines in this article on how to interpret each level of severity, this is still a very subjective matter and chances are high that one will not agree with the definition of the other. You can however lessen the chances of differing opinions in your project by discussing (and documenting, if necessary) what each level of severity means and by agreeing to at least some standards (substantiating with examples, if necessary.)
Normally, Testers have the final say on Defect Severity whereas the Project Management / Product Management / Client has the final say on Defect Priority.
ADVICE: Go easy on this touchy defect dimension and good luck!
Last Updated on September 6, 2020 by STF

Previously it was generally a minor or trivial defect/bug, but then conditions changed elsewhere in the system & it jumped to major or critical.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And a gun is causing no problems until someone gets shot by it. By your logic, it must be the fault of the person who got shot that they died, right? They came later, and there was no issue until they came, so it's obviously their fault.

P.S. Please stop speaking so condescendingly. I really do not appreciate it, especially when it is unneeded and was unprovoked.

This is a really bad analogy and has nothing to do with the issue. And sorry if I am being a tad brusque, but you have been making incoherent circular arguments for pages now. The fact is that there was a balancing element in place. Features of mountain dwarf were very deliberately designed to balance each other, so that one could not create a character that was overpowered in one area. This is good design. That balancing element was removed and this caused issues. Removing this balancing element without considering the implications is bad design.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@tetrasodium yes, if you remove the intentionally designed balancing element that causes issues. So don't! Havin a balancing element is not an issue, removing it is. This is not hard.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This is a really bad analogy and has nothing to do with the issue.

Cop out. It has everything to do with the issue. Your argument for dozens of posts has been that "it wasn't a problem before, so the new thing is the problem," so I proposed a circumstance where it is very clearly the first thing that is the problem, not the second thing. The order of their release does not dictate which part was an issue.

And sorry if I am being a tad brusque, but you have been making incoherent circular arguments for pages now.

Ignoring the subject at hand for an ad hominem.

The fact is that there was a balancing element in place.

For one race, and basically non-existent for every other race.

If the majority of the races use one balancing element, and one uses a different balancing element, and then you make a rule that allows you to switch around your bonuses/proficiencies, don't complain about the rule that makes one race a problem, complain about the one race that makes the rule a problem.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For one race, and basically non-existent for every other race.

It is not non-existent, mountain dwarves are merely most prominent example. Other examples of this effect were discussed on many early pages of this very thread.

If the majority of the races use one balancing element, and one uses a different balancing element, and then you make a rule that allows you to switch around your bonuses/proficiencies, don't complain about the rule that makes one race a problem, complain about the one race that makes the rule a problem.

When designing a new rule one must always take into account the existing rules. People who designed PHB races could not take into account rule that would be introduced several years later, their work was balanced and coherent in the context as it existed then. People designing the rules for Tasha's were aware of previous rules and failed to take into account how their new rule would interact with them. This is a failure in game design, pure and simple.

 

[Umbran]

Mod note:

Folks... this is about pretending to be elves. Keep that perspective in mind, and speak to each other respectfully. If you find you just can't, disengaging is preferable to bulldogging the issue to prove you are RIGHT and getting yourself in trouble because you felt frustrated.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Point taken, @Umbran. I'm bowing out. It seems like this discussion is going nowhere.

 

[jgsugden]

Can someone demonstrate how a build changed by this is broken? What is it doing that it could not do before that breaks the game? I'm still missing that piece in this discussion. I see an elven fighter might get a few extra tool proficiencies rather than seeing a few redundant weapon proficiencies go to waste. How does this meaningfully break the game? Why does a mountain dwarf getting two +2s break the game? Because they can get a monk up to +18 Dex and +18 wisdom at 4th level when using point buy (at the cost of having really weak other stats)? I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Can someone demonstrate how a build changed by this is broken? What is it doing that it could not do before that breaks the game? I'm still missing that piece in this discussion. I see an elven fighter might get a few extra tool proficiencies rather than seeing a few redundant weapon proficiencies go to waste. How does this meaningfully break the game? Why does a mountain dwarf getting two +2s break the game? Because they can get a monk up to +18 Dex and +18 wisdom at 4th level when using point buy (at the cost of having really weak other stats)? I'm just not seeing it.

It doesn't really 'break the game' but definitely allows some builds that are significantly above most others. Most obvious example is a mountain dwarf caster with medium armour, with their casting stat and con at 17 and dex at 14. This allows you to bump both the casting stat and con to 18 with your first ASI at the level four and have pretty damn decent AC. Not game breaking, but definitely far stronger than what most other races can do. Previously this was limited by mountain dwarf ability bonuses being unsuitable for casters. Now this is not really a huge deal, but considering that the whole point of this optional rule was to fix the issue of some races being simply better for some classes than others, it is rather pathetic...