D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Maxperson]

I totally agree.

And, FWIW, I'd be perfectly happy with a game in which you get 5 10's and 1 12. As I keep saying, it's not that I need a 16 specifically, it's that the incentive to make a character choice that leaves me with a +2 in my primary attribute is not as compelling as the choice that gives me a +3.

If, for example, there was a choice between the racial ASI and a feat, I'd happily play the unusual race/class but take a feat instead of the ASI.

But right now (or, pre-Tasha's) it was a choice between:
A) +2 in your primary attribute and (a bunch of racial abilities)
B) +2 in some other, potentially dump, attribute and (a bunch of racial abilities)

Given that the bunch of racial abilities are roughly equivalent...which they are, to me...I just never found it compelling to take choice B.

That different outlook might be where why we disagree here. I do view some racial abilities as more fun than others, and I also value character concept more highly than a trivial amount of extra damage. If my concept involves the PC being an Tiefling Fighter, that's going to win out over a bit of extra damage every time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Correct. I haven't even seen anything that says that the designers agree at all. What we've seen is a change that could just as easily have been made to placate a large group of people that doesn't understand just how small of a difference that +1 really makes in normal game play, and believes that +1 is "necessary."

Not what I meant. I'm saying that the design choices that make up 5e aren't exactly... perfect let's say, so the designers agreeing on something isn't an awesome endorsement.

That +1 at least acts as a placebo to make you feel like your character is competent or improving.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, good luck with that.

I don't need luck. It's math.

 

[Maxperson]

Not what I meant. I'm saying that the design choices that make up 5e aren't exactly... perfect let's say, so the designers agreeing on something isn't an awesome endorsement.

That +1 at least acts as a placebo to make you feel like your character is competent or improving.

Right. It's a placebo. For me, though, picking up a feat instead of ASIs also makes me feel like my character is improving and is much more fun, mostly because it's actually noticeable.

And I agree that designer endorsement doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. I just don't see where they actually stated that they believe that the +1 is important.

 

[Remathilis]

The only way to play balanced 5e is to download and play using that Free Basic Rules document. Four races, four classes (one subclass each), six backgrounds, limited spell lists, and the equipment chapter. Adding anything else (even the rest of the PHB) imbalances the game.

 

[TwoSix]

That different outlook might be where why we disagree here. I do view some racial abilities as more fun than others, and I also value character concept more highly than a trivial amount of extra damage. If my concept involves the PC being an Tiefling Fighter, that's going to win out over a bit of extra damage every time.

The difference for me is that Tiefling Fighter, pre-Tasha's, would never even enter my mind as a consideration. The box of playable characters simply didn't include combinations without at least a +1 to a primary stat.

That's why I like the Tasha's rules, they expanded my box of playable characters quite a bit! Now they just need to make 1st level feats standard instead of being locked behind VHuman/Custom Lineage, and I'm good to go.

 

[TwoSix]

Right. It's a placebo. For me, though, picking up a feat instead of ASIs also makes me feel like my character is improving and is much more fun, mostly because it's actually noticeable.

FWIW, I agree with this. I don't like ASI's, personally. I'd rather have the game be feats only than have any kind of ASI be an option.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If my concept involves the PC being an Tiefling Fighter, that's going to win out over a bit of extra damage every time.

I don't see "Tiefling Fighter" as a concept, it's a race/class combination. If I have an actual concept in mind for which Tiefling is the best race match, I'll find a synergistic class with which to express it.

I mean, one could intentionally create a concept which only seems to point to one class. "A character whose father comes from the lower planes who fought his way out of the gladiator pits with a greataxe before living alone in the wilds..." But I think that's an artificial exercise. I start with personality/motivations, sometimes based on class, and go from there.

 

[Maxperson]

The difference for me is that Tiefling Fighter, pre-Tasha's, would never even enter my mind as a consideration. The box of playable characters simply didn't include combinations without at least a +1 to a primary stat.

That's why I like the Tasha's rules, they expanded my box of playable characters quite a bit! Now they just need to make 1st level feats standard instead of being locked behind VHuman/Custom Lineage, and I'm good to go.

I understand that there are people like you out there who feel that way, and I think the change was made for you guys. For me the one extra hit or miss per 20 swings just isn't worth the worry. I've always had ever race/class combo(unless the rules forbade it like dwarf wizards in some editions) on the table.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't see "Tiefling Fighter" as a concept, it's a race/class combination. If I have an actual concept in mind for which Tiefling is the best race match, I'll find a synergistic class with which to express it.

I said part of the concept.

I mean, one could intentionally create a concept which only seems to point to one class. "A character whose father comes from the lower planes who fought his way out of the gladiator pits with a greataxe before living alone in the wilds..." But I think that's an artificial exercise. I start with personality/motivations, sometimes based on class, and go from there.

For me sometimes it's only personality/motivations. Sometimes race and class are part of it. It all depends.