D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[EzekielRaiden]

But it is broken? I grew up in the early AD&D era, and the notion of OP back then was rather different from today's. Maybe I'm too stuck in the past, but I still think of "broken" as meaning a lot more than "This character class is more powerful than these others." To my aging mind, it's more like, "This character class consistently turns every adventure into a one-person ego trip."

Well then, while we agree on the result (Tasha's isn't broken, and Twilight Cleric is powerful but often overblown), there's gonna be some major gaps between you and a fair chunk of people today, including me.

The way I see it, a class is kind of like choosing your game piece in Monopoly. That is, it is heavily an aesthetic choice, which should not unduly bias the game in your favor. Undue bias doesn't have to be as dramatic as "transforms the game into a one-man ego-trip," that's just the most blatant and obvious example.* It can be as simple as "class X always has better tools to solve problems, and as soon as those tools run out, that person--and the rest of the party--is best served by resting to regain those tools," aka the "five minute workday" or the like.

More or less, I see classes (and races/ancestries) as your "game piece." Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to play the game. That means, even though those opportunities may be different in details, they should provide reasonably the same amount of ability to advance and reshape the state of play, which for TTRPGs means the state of the fiction (e.g. alliances, stakes, secrets, etc.) or the state of the mechanics (e.g. combat statistics, skill challenges, character resources, etc.) As a DM, I have necessarily a better and finer awareness of the fiction than the designers can ever have even in principle, and thus I prefer systems which either encourage every player to participate in fiction-building (e.g. DW, 13A), or which have a very light touch with fiction-building and instead focus on being a very good mechanical space (e.g. 4e, and sorta also 13A), leaving the fiction to me.

As a result, either these things "should" be balanced so that everyone gets their fair shot at altering the fiction-state and the mechanics-state, or they "should" be balanced very well on the mechanics-state side of things so that I-as-DM can ensure that the group collectively (including me) develops a fiction we're interested in pursuing. The latter is mostly a thing because I can imagine up darn near anything, but developing well-balanced mechanics takes a lot of time and effort I just don't have. One person can tell an awesome, cohesive, compelling story. It's very hard for one person to create a system that is simultaneously deep, approachable, and well-balanced. Quality narrative doesn't require anywhere near the "testing" that quality mechanics do!

*A friend of mine endured this in his first-ever 5e game (DM lavishing favors on someone, including 9th-lvl spells as a racial feature at 1st level!!), and it made him so infuriated and distraught, it inspired me to become a DM. Even with my intense impostor syndrome, I was absolutely certain I could not be anywhere near THAT bad as a DM. Turns out I'm pretty good at it, at least for my group, since the game has now been going for four years and that player has semi-recently returned from an IRL-induced hiatus!

 

[Umbran]

My point is that a noticeable amount of Tasha's felt like to me as obligation to make material by people who never were going to use it.

I understand that you feel what you feel, but there's a sort of mind-reading going on - you are looking at the end product, and using it to ascribe negative personal characteristics to the authors themselves. That is unkind, and poorly founded.

If someone were to take your stated dislike for the product, and use that as a basis for an assessment that you are, personally, a real schnook of a player or GM, you'd probably take exception to that, no? And rightfully so!

But then the Golden Rule kicks in - don't do to them what you wouldn't want done to you.

 

[Oofta]

Like I said, we won.

Not sure being a squeaky wheel is something to be proud of.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not sure being a squeaky wheel is something to be proud of.

Yeah, that's one of the nicer descriptions used by people who don't want change, and wish that those asking for it would just shut up.

 

[d24454_modern]

Which is a good argument for simply getting rid of ASIs and changing the ability score generation method to produce a similar result.

To me that just means make the stat differences bigger.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not sure being a squeaky wheel is something to be proud of.

i mean that killed 4e, and people who like 5e are VERY proud of that...so

 

[CleverNickName]

i mean that killed 4e, and people who like 5e are VERY proud of that...so

*[Citation needed]

 

[Guest 7034872]

The way I see it, a class is kind of like choosing your game piece in Monopoly. That is, it is heavily an aesthetic choice, which should not unduly bias the game in your favor. Undue bias doesn't have to be as dramatic as "transforms the game into a one-man ego-trip," that's just the most blatant and obvious example.* It can be as simple as "class X always has better tools to solve problems, and as soon as those tools run out, that person--and the rest of the party--is best served by resting to regain those tools," aka the "five minute workday" or the like.

More or less, I see classes (and races/ancestries) as your "game piece." Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to play the game. That means, even though those opportunities may be different in details, they should provide reasonably the same amount of ability to advance and reshape the state of play, which for TTRPGs means the state of the fiction (e.g. alliances, stakes, secrets, etc.) or the state of the mechanics (e.g. combat statistics, skill challenges, character resources, etc.)

Sure, I can see that. Like I said, much of my memory hearkens back to when game imbalance was rampant in the system, so it's likely my initial intuitions on this are too permissive. I figure where I'll likely eventually draw the line is when and where players no longer enjoy the game or one player's enjoyment is at the expense of the rest; I just haven't yet learned where that is. Once I get some more experience under my belt and watch what goes on with player interactions, combat sequences, and the rest of it, it may well be that I'll prioritize a stricter form of game balance.

So is it your opinion that elements of Tasha's are legitimately broken? The Twilight Cleric is much-discussed, sure, but I'm wondering: what other bits bother you? I'm not asking rhetorically or getting argumentative, mind you: this is a genuine question for me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tasha's cauldron has a lot of OP to broken stuff in it from the custom race, variant class, race and archetype rules and several spells and feats are also up there.

Since I disagree completely with this, I doubt I’ll be much help, but I’ll try to engage usefully with the thread anyway.

Twilight cleric is also a big one peace is also great and the other subclasses are often better than the phb as well.

They’re good. What is it you think is broken about them? What negative impact do they have on the game?

The more I see it in play the less I like this book. Didn't get that from Xanathars.

So after seeing it used there's multiple things I don't want used.

Anyway that's just me. Your thoughts?

Have you tried using those things to see if they actually impact the game in the way you expect?

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, that's one of the nicer descriptions used by people who don't want change, and wish that those asking for it would just shut up.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I.

The change is hardly the end of the world. I don't think it was necessary, rolling for ability scores will affect your PC far more than where you get that +1 or 2. I just foresee a future where you just "buy" different racial options because every PC has to be unique and have no connection to any kind of unifying theme. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion.