I'm seeing responses ranging from "cautiously optimistic" to "absolutely enthusiastic" from the creators I'm following on social media; from the D&D hype-men/shills, yes, but also from some of WotC's fiercest critics on this issue. A lot of these people were let down by Tasha's minimal treatment of the subject, and at the very least are happy that WotC is presenting a more coherent and less vague direction that they're planning to move in.
As long as there are roughly equal numbers of people shouting Tasha's "Went too far!" as those complaining it "Didn't go far enough!", I reckon they did about right.
How would you model in game mechanics the impact of weighing 600lbs instead of weighing 30lbs on damage inflicted with physical attacks?
If the realistic way of modelling the impact of weighing 160lbs instead of weighing 140lbs would be with a +4 Str bonus, what bonus would you use to model in game mechanics the impact of weighing 600lbs instead of weighing 30lbs?
Yes, but when you choose, for example, whether to increase your Strength score or take the Great Weapon Master Feat, you’re choosing between two things that make you a better Fighter in different ways. When you choose to take the Actor Feat instead of either, you are choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, in order to get something else you want. When you choose to play any race that doesn’t grant a bonus to strength though? You’re just stuck with being a worse fighter.
I have to say: I believe this to be generally false.
Outside of outright balance issues, when you make a non-minmaxed choice, you are
always "choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, in order to get something else you want." This holds true whether picking a non-optimal feat,
or a non-optimal race.
Characterising one choice as giving up some mechanical combat effectiveness for something else you value a little more and the other as giving up some mechanical combat effectiveness for nothing is neither accurate nor honest.
When you choose to pick a race that does not give you a +2 bonus to Strength, you are choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, but presumably you are getting something else you want: an equivalent bonus or ability elsewhere. Just like choosing between the GWM and Actor feats.
Your only recourse, if you want to be an effective fighter, is to play a member of a narrow subset of races that give you a bonus to Strength, and maybe none of those races interest you. Well, too bad. Pick one or suck it up.
Yeah. Still not a fan of the "If you want to be an effective person, you need X" sentiment. Whether X is a specific qualification, ability bonus, or BMI score.
No, see that is exactly the problem.
I do not want to play a ranged warrior. I want to play a halfling with a bigass hammer and no regard for human safety or decency. And I want to be mechanically competent at it.
The changes made in Tasha's and continued in the UA have not changed the fact that you cannot do this. They have only allowed you to be a little less mechanically incompetent at it. Even a
'roid-crazed chimpanzee on bad acid halfling is still getting disadvantage on attacks with a bigass hammer.