D&D 5E Tasha's and optimization

[jasper]

I don't see the floating +2/+1 as a problem of any kind. In fact, I see it as a positive since it no longer mitigates for race X if you want to play Class Y, at least in terms of stat bonuses.

And I see as a negative and it removed some the flavor from the game. Because knowing some races geared you to a class was flavor.

 

[bedir than]

Because knowing some races geared you to a class was flavor.

Racial abilities still steer most races towards a class. Not having a 5% better roll doesn't remove that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I see as a negative and it removed some the flavor from the game. Because knowing some races geared you to a class was flavor.

Not all flavor is a good flavor though.

Like knowing you just won't be as good at your class because of your race.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And I see as a negative and it removed some the flavor from the game. Because knowing some races geared you to a class was flavor.

This thread is about optimization using this rule from TCoE. If you don't like the rule, fine. However, you don't need to go against the grain of the thread. I swear, every thread that is about TCoE or new races has about half a dozen people jumping to say "I hate this rule!!!", even when it's not on topic or constructive for the thread at all.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Racial abilities still steer most races towards a class. Not having a 5% better roll doesn't remove that.

The thing I would emphasis is that, while having racial abilities that don't align with your class isn't the most optimised, it doesn't necessarily feel bad.

Knowing you are going to miss in 5% more scenarios because of picking one ancestory over another without ways to mitigate that does.

Chance to hit / change to affect something are, in my opinion, one of the most sensitive areas in a game's design; and players, naturally, are going to be geared to maximise this chance (whether it is the 'best' way to have fun or not). Because... missing sucks. It really, really sucks. And knowing you're missing because of a choice you made for flavour or because you wanted to portray a certain character does hit some bad spots for some people.

I don't really care if, from the perspective of optimisation, if my Kobold Cleric is a 'poor' choice because their racial features don't match up with what Clerics typically do.

I do care if that choice results in me missing a 5% of a chance over the whole course of a campaign. It just feels bad.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The thing I would emphasis is that, while having racial abilities that don't align with your class isn't the most optimised, it doesn't necessarily feel bad.

Knowing you are going to miss in 5% more scenarios because of picking one ancestory over another without ways to mitigate that does.

Chance to hit / change to affect something are, in my opinion, one of the most sensitive areas in a game's design; and players, naturally, are going to be geared to maximise this chance (whether it is the 'best' way to have fun or not). Because... missing sucks. It really, really sucks. And knowing you're missing because of a choice you made for flavour or because you wanted to portray a certain character does hit some bad spots for some people.

I don't really care if, from the perspective of optimisation, if my Kobold Cleric is a 'poor' choice because their racial features don't match up with what Clerics typically do.

I do care if that choice results in me missing a 5% of a chance over the whole course of a campaign. It just feels bad.

This is completely subjective. Both affect the character competence in the class. That you for some reason care about one but not another doesn't change that.

 

[ReshiIRE]

This is completely subjective. Both affect the character competence in the class. That you for some reason care about one but not another doesn't change that.

I mean, it is; but I would argue that chance to hit not only affects a much, much wider scope of play than a racial feature than Pack Tactics, but it also feels much worse having a lower chance of effectiveness than not taking advantage of something you get for free upon character creation.

Chance to hit does matter; it's a pretty big balancing tool even in a bounded accuracy system, and its mechanical function is always on; it affects every skill used with it constantly, along with every ability you have constantly (along with any saving throws along with it). 5% can make a difference, and while from a statistical perspective it's not major, dice rolls at the table can be fraught. Any chance to reduce their violatility is taken - which doesn't reduce fun or cool things at the table (who isn't proud when their Bless makes the difference in a fight?)

Personally, I just want to be able to pick a character ancestory for flavour or for cool factor without having to ponder anything about basic competency for my character at their role, both for personal satisifaction and not to cause any friction at the table. And while I know by default in 5e, the system is set up so that you have a great chance to hit a +2, there are times when that assumption can bite you in the face.

This restlessness has increased for me in how seeing other systems provide the feel of what people who prefer fixed ASIs want while ensuring that any ancestory can reach the maximum potential in any class. It's a system that, increasingly to me, is too basic to satisfy anyone in either a fixed or non-fixed ASI manner.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, it is; but I would argue that chance to hit not only affects a much, much wider scope of play than a racial feature than Pack Tactics, but it also feels much worse having a lower chance of effectiveness than not taking advantage of something you get for free upon character creation.

Chance to hit does matter; it's a pretty big balancing tool even in a bounded accuracy system, and its mechanical function is always on; it affects every skill used with it constantly, along with every ability you have constantly (along with any saving throws along with it). 5% can make a difference, and while from a statistical perspective it's not major, dice rolls at the table can be fraught. Any chance to reduce their violatility is taken - which doesn't reduce fun or cool things at the table (who isn't proud when their Bless makes the difference in a fight?)

Personally, I just want to be able to pick a character ancestory for flavour or for cool factor without having to ponder anything about basic competency for my character at their role, both for personal satisifaction and not to cause any friction at the table. And while I know by default in 5e, the system is set up so that you have a great chance to hit a +2, there are times when that assumption can bite you in the face.

That 5% obviously matters, but than again, if you wouldn't see the numbers how long you would have to play to even notice it in practice? Whereas whether you have a trait or not is far more explicit.

This restlessness has increased for me in how seeing other systems provide the feel of what people who prefer fixed ASIs want while ensuring that any ancestory can reach the maximum potential in any class. It's a system that, increasingly to me, is too basic to satisfy anyone in either a fixed or non-fixed ASI manner.

How?

 

[ReshiIRE]

That 5% obviously matters, but than again, if you wouldn't see the numbers how long you would have to play to even notice it in practice? Whereas whether you have a trait or not is far more explicit.

That is a valid point, I suppose it does depend on play style and how open and closed a GM or DM is, and how they respond to various events. However, you can tell certainly when it comes to, for example, the AC of a character; especially in a bounded accuracy system, it is fairly trivial to figure out the AC of an unknown and unfought monster thanks to the variability of dice; recording when you miss and recording when you hit gives you an easy way to create an AC range and narrow it down. This allows you to quickly qualify how much your modifier affects your chance to hit.

In addition, against saving against negative effects as your character, you will have a pretty quick understanding of whether you meet a DC or not depending on how constant the saves are for it.

A trait is more explicit, but it can also be quite a lot more niche and depending on the situation, much less impacting than a modifier.

In my opinion as well, the harder it is to quantify how much that 5% matters, the more uncertaintiy - and the more import - I would put on it. Personally, for me, I try to reduce risk as much as possible in an RPG (particularly in a potentially deadly game for my character) rather than necessarily explore more exciting features. Not knowing how much a 5% difference makes it a riskier prospect to, say, not take that 5% increase.

How?

I explained PF2e's system here. I do believe this is a pretty satisfactory point for what people want, if I understand it correctly.

I might need to take a step back, though. I have been posting a lot about this and I'm not sure if I'm in the right mindset to be debating, as I'm not sure I'm getting my points across or in a helpful manner.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That is a valid point, I suppose it does depend on play style and how open and closed a GM or DM is, and how they respond to various events. However, you can tell certainly when it comes to, for example, the AC of a character; especially in a bounded accuracy system, it is fairly trivial to figure out the AC of an unknown and unfought monster thanks to the variability of dice; recording when you miss and recording when you hit gives you an easy way to create an AC range and narrow it down. This allows you to quickly qualify how much your modifier affects your chance to hit.

In addition, against saving against negative effects as your character, you will have a pretty quick understanding of whether you meet a DC or not depending on how constant the saves are for it.

A trait is more explicit, but it can also be quite a lot more niche and depending on the situation, much less impacting than a modifier.

In my opinion as well, the harder it is to quantify how much that 5% matters, the more uncertaintiy - and the more import - I would put on it. Personally, for me, I try to reduce risk as much as possible in an RPG (particularly in a potentially deadly game for my character) rather than necessarily explore more exciting features. Not knowing how much a 5% difference makes it a riskier prospect to, say, not take that 5% increase.

I mean, this is how you feel. But I don't think it is inherently more logical to favour advantage given by ASIs over one given by traits or vice versa. I'm sure different people see these things differently.

I explained PF2e's system here. I do believe this is a pretty satisfactory point for what people want, if I understand it correctly.

I am not sure I understood it correctly, but to me it seemed a very convoluted process of jumping trough hoops, but the end result basically is that everyone gets whatever scores wherever they want. I can't say I see the appeal... Like under this system can a halfling get the same starting strength score than a goliath? If they can, it it's not working for me, regardless of how exactly that result was achieved.

I might need to take a step back, though. I have been posting a lot about this and I'm not sure if I'm in the right mindset to be debating, as I'm not sure I'm getting my points across or in a helpful manner.

This debate has going on for years. (Though it feels like centuries!) I don't think any of us feel we're getting out point across!