D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Oofta]

Yeah I was being too snarky with that. Not that two wrongs make a right* but your snarky response was perhaps justified.

*however, three lefts do

I thought it was two lefts followed by a right? Hmm. Probably a good thing I have Google maps nowadays.

 

[MGibster]

When will people just come together to commiserate about all of them being inferior to me?

We frequently hold such meetings but decided against inviting you. A being of your superior qualities has no desire for punch or pie.

 

[Minigiant]

wait until 2024

Well with 5e's schedule, more like 2026.

 

[Horwath]

Well with 5e's schedule, more like 2026.

it's 50th anniversary in 2024. They wont miss on that cash cow.

I expect 5.5e PHB to go inline with Tasha's optional features and power level.

 

[CleverNickName]

it's 50th anniversary in 2024. They wont miss on that cash cow.

I expect 5.5e PHB to go inline with Tasha's optional features and power level.

Combining multiple books into a single book sounds like a good idea, unless you are in the business of selling multiple books.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

If that is the way you feel I can understand it, but I pity it a bit because it implies the numbers alone seem to mean that much to you?

With a standard array, for example, you could make a tiefling fighter with 15, 13, 14, 11 (10+1), 12, 10 (8+2). Yes, you only have +2 for your attack and damage rolls, or swap it with DEX if you want a finesse-build with +2 AC as well.

But, by 4th level (which IME doesn't take very long) you can have a 16 (with a half feat) or 17 even. Sure, you might for a while be +1 behind other PCs, but you have other racial traits (like hellish rebuke) which hopefully make up for that?

Frankly, even starting with a +2 in my "main thing" never bothered me, or made me feel like I needed to limit my choice of race/class combination. If ASIs were removed competely, you would be in the same boat as a tiefling fighter as RAW.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn’t have a huge impact, but the arguments in favor of it are just about optimization? Make that make sense.

More importantly, why are you assuming bad faith on the part of all the people telling you, in many different threads, that it’s not about optimization?

Because optimization in this context is being construed as a negative, and folks don't want to say that's what they're doing? Or folks honestly don't realize that aspect of the rules change?

 

[DND_Reborn]

and that means everybody has to deal with it.

Or ignore it.

Like I said, we won.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because optimization in this context is being construed as a negative, and folks don't want to say that's what they're doing? Or folks honestly don't realize that aspect of the rules change?

The word "optimize" would be fine, except it now carries (perhaps intentionally) a negative connotation...close to "minmaxing" or "powergaming"...that doesn't describe what's going on.

I mean, choosing character concept over ability scores is also optimization, if what you are optimizing for is that character concept. So it's a fuzzy word to begin with.

In that sense, I guess I am optimizing: I can choose a rogue with pointy ears and a 17 dex, or fangs and greenish skin with a 15 dex. I choose pointy ears and 17 dex, because that what appeals to me more, so I am optimizing my choices according to my preferences.

By that definition, aren't we all optimizing? If we can agree on that definition, then I'm happy to use it.

But when people use it to mean, indirectly, that I must be an inferior roleplayer, they know where they can go stuff it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

View attachment 155580

Am I too infer from this that you don't think the horse has left the barn. That WotC might change their minds back, and in 5.5 races will have fixed ASIs?