D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Weiley31]

the market will provide options.

Tis true. And the Market for 5E has been hella GREAT!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Guess I missed it then, because I've never even seen this come up.

Well, @Willie the Duck just explained it. Again.

Sure, I get that, but...

I want my dragonborn rogue to be as good at "roguing" as the wood-elf rogue and, well, my dragonborn traits just don't help much. I mean, I can't sneak attack with my breath weapon and it uses my action. Shouldn't it be a bonus action instead at least?

See how that works? I just find it odd that people are concerned about ASIs but not the other traits...

Assuming you aren't being disingenous (and to be honest, the emoji carry a whiff of disingenuous smirk) I'll try again:

Sure, Mask of the Wild is probably more useful for rogues than breath weapon is. Actually, that's a terrible example because rogues don't have any AoE attacks, so breath weapon is probably super useful. Bet let's say we are choosing between Mask of the Wild and, say, proficiency in short swords, which rogues already have and is therefore totally worthless.

The difference between this example and the ASI one is that, sure, Mask of the Wild is going to come in handy, and in some circumstances it may even save the day. But it's still nowhere near as impactful as +1 on every single attack roll and every single damage roll. (Not to mention various rogueish skills.).

Equally (more?) importantly, while the difference in ASI is quantifiable, the difference between racial abilities is usually not quantifiable. Which means players can subjectively justify whichever they like more. Think the breath weapon would be cool? Great, tell yourself that this is going to be super useful as a rogue. Nobody can prove you wrong with math.

Finally, a big part of the argument in favor of floating ASIs is that ability score modifiers don't really add much if any distinctive flavor between races. Yes, I know people on the other side make the opposite claim. But if you will take as sincere the claims of the former group, then it follows that they are more willing to accept racial abilities...even those that may have some class synergy...when those abilities are genuinely flavorful. So even if Mask of the Wild is better for rogues and rangers than for, say, paladins, it also conveys a lot more distinctive Wood Elf flavor than a generic +2 Dex, and since perfect is the enemy of the good, we'll take good enough.

Now, you don't have to be persuaded by these arguments, but I hope you will at least accept the sincerity of them.

 

[Weiley31]

As somebody who pretty much got interested in DND during 3.0/3.5, Neverwinter Nights 1, and reading bout Baldur's Gate 1, BG 2, Planescape: Torment, and Icewind Dale 1/2, I was always used to Racial Modifiers and always kept them in because that was how DND did it.

With that said, however, I will agree that one of my fave parts about Tasha's is how it updated DND to now "allow" people to place their modifiers wherever they want. It allows me and people at the table to now place that +2 to the most important stat that is important to the class/subclass that I am playing. Especially when I roll for my stats.

And I also like the fact we got items now that can add a +2 to various classes' Spell DCs or whatever. I see no probs with those items. If the DM wants you dead, then the DM will do whatever the Dice disagree with to make sure you have to make those death saves at some point.

 

[Jer]

See how that works? I just find it odd that people are concerned about ASIs but not the other traits...

The mechanical place that ASIs hold in the game is very different from the place that extra bonus features hold. Ability scores are common across all PCs and the range that they can take on is the same as well. The ability scores govern a core element of the game and have become fundamental to the game in ways that they weren't in editions prior to 3rd.

So if I want my Halfling to be athletic, well, that's based on Strength. So why can't I make my Halfling who has been working out and focusing on his Strength instead of his Dexterity? Why is it that every single member of a race has some bonus to some particular attribute? What is that modeling in the world?

With extra features it's obvious what is being modeled - a Fire Genasi has able to cast fire spells whether they studied magic or not because they have magic fire powers. A fairy has wings and can fly because fairies have wings. A dragonborn has a breath attack because they're part dragon. So each of these things has a clear thing that they're modeling in the fiction or in the world (depending on how you view it all).

Bonuses to particular ASIs are modelling a stereotype being real in the world. "All X are good at Y". So it's completely unsurprising that a) people wanting to play a hero in a game would reject that premise and want to play an X who is good at Z and not so good at Y instead and b) people might make some real-world connections between that model that are particularly ugly and would rather avoid them.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

Nah, it just meant there were a few races I like that I didn't roll with because the stats didn't match up for my current interests.

I mean, there are dozens of characters I would like to try at some point, but there's just not enough time to try them all, even with 4 groups going. Restricting that set to appropriately-statted races is a minor sacrifice.

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.

And I can't imagine looking at that and not feeling a little skeeved-out, when I could have played a human fighter with a 16 Str AND either PAM or GWM instead. Or a 16 Dex and SS. I mean, getting a 10 Cha instead of an 8 is so....vestigal. It's like taking mountain dwarf fighter and wasting that medium armor proficiency. It's just....ugh.

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?

Honestly, it's totally irrelevant that I would be behind the other PCs. The issue is that I'm behind a better choice I could have made.

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.

I'm assuming that if ASIs were removed, the point-buy/array/rolling systems would be modified as well to give higher baselines. And if the ASIs weren't present at all, then tiefling fighter is no longer behind other choices I could have made, and thus doesn't elicit that squicky feeling.

Realistically, this is an aesthetic/psychological preference. If you can see those race/class combinations and it doesn't make you feel kinda gross (or at least give you that "stone in my shoe" feeling), there's really no way to explain it to you.

 

[TwoSix]

I want my dragonborn rogue to be as good at "roguing" as the wood-elf rogue and, well, my dragonborn traits just don't help much. I mean, I can't sneak attack with my breath weapon and it uses my action. Shouldn't it be a bonus action instead at least?

See how that works? I just find it odd that people are concerned about ASIs but not the other traits...

Because the only racial trait I can think of that would bias me toward a particular class selection is mountain dwarf armor proficiency. None of the rest have enough of an impact. And that's me looking at it with my optimizer/powergamer hat on.

Fortunately, racial features are weak enough (VHuman feat excepted) that aesthetics can trump gameplay for the most part.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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?

I think that the arguments are more about semantics and the definition of "optimisation".
I haven't seen anyone claiming that a +2 in your primary ability score is more optimal than having a +3. Its just a question of whether optimising your numbers makes you an optimiser? And whether there are negative connotations to doing such optimisation/improvements.

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.

I would say that seeking any improvement is optimisation. However I would hesitate before I called someone an optimiser, even though optimiser has less connotations than min/maxer or munchkin.

Ultimately it is a question of each person's judgement call. If you wanted to play a rogue with green skin and tusks, but chose to play one with pointy ears, then the numbers were more important than the concept in that particular judgement call. Everyone will draw their line in a different place when weighting the various options.

Kinda close to a slippery slope argument (at least if we preface this with 'why stop at attributes?'). Regardless, most racial abilities at least are useful for a broad swath of character types (Mask of the Wild and darkvision, in particular, are pretty much beneficial to any character type; a few like half-orcs savage attack being notable exceptions). Each class has 1-2 relatively universally agreed-upon best-case attributes and having a relative deficit in them is much more clearly favoring not putting race X with class Y.

Its a long slope or spectrum, and WotC have moved their line from one point on it to a way further down, but that doesn't mean that they are going to go all the way to the end.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

rolling for ability scores will affect your PC far more than where you get that +1 or 2.

I never allow for rolling ability scores now for just this reason. It unbalances the party too much. So "rolling ability scores creates more imbalance between characters than Racial ASIs do" is not at all a compelling argument to me. I don't use the PHB's racial ASIs or rolling for stats because I don't like the imbalance between PCs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Now, you don't have to be persuaded by these arguments, but I hope you will at least accept the sincerity of them.

OK. No, I am not persuaded by them (though I see some of it, sure) and fully accept the sincerity.

And FWIW, @Willie the Duck offered their comment just in this thread, your response of this coming up a lot before implied it has been covered in other posts and/ or threads, in which case I didn't see those.

So if I want my Halfling to be athletic, well, that's based on Strength. So why can't I make my Halfling who has been working out and focusing on his Strength instead of his Dexterity? Why is it that every single member of a race has some bonus to some particular attribute? What is that modeling in the world?

It is modeling the physiological differences between races. Halflings are nimble and friendly, gaining DEX and CHA in general or hardy and CON. Some other races are nimble, or quick, or have keen sense of balance, or whatever and might also get a DEX bonus, for instance.

Of course your halfling can be strong, put your best score (or a good one at least) in Strength and wham! you are strong. That represents that he HAS been working out, which is why he has a high strength score. If you put an 8 in DEX, it is bumped to 10 because of his natural nimbleness (slight fingers or great sense of balance or whatever). He is sort of clumsy maybe by halfling standards, but decent enough by other standards...

We have complete control over where we assign our ability scores unless your group rolls in order (in which case kudos to you!), so you can put your best scores where you want your PCs to excel. Having floating ASI is (typically) just used by many players to make those best scores better, in which case just start with a different generation method and drop them because they mean nothing. By having them fixed for race, they meant something--even if some people didn't see why they were there.

With extra features it's obvious what is being modeled - a Fire Genasi has able to cast fire spells whether they studied magic or not because they have magic fire powers. A fairy has wings and can fly because fairies have wings. A dragonborn has a breath attack because they're part dragon. So each of these things has a clear thing that they're modeling in the fiction or in the world (depending on how you view it all).

Sure, I know that but I can model all the default original ASIs due to model of the world/fiction just as easily, which is why they have been part of the game in one form or another for decades.

Bonuses to particular ASIs are modelling a stereotype being real in the world. "All X are good at Y". So it's completely unsurprising that a) people wanting to play a hero in a game would reject that premise and want to play an X who is good at Z and not so good at Y instead and b) people might make some real-world connections between that model that are particularly ugly and would rather avoid them.

And there it is: the real reason why WotC went this route IMO.

Honestly, it's totally irrelevant that I would be behind the other PCs. The issue is that I'm behind a better choice I could have made.

That is fair enough. For me the interest is in the concept and character, would one combination be better than another, sure, but if I'll have more fun playing the weaker combination I will.

I'm assuming that if ASIs were removed, the point-buy/array/rolling systems would be modified as well to give higher baselines. And if the ASIs weren't present at all, then tiefling fighter is no longer behind other choices I could have made, and thus doesn't elicit that squicky feeling.

I'd rather just see the low numbers stay, but that is an issue of preference.

Realistically, this is an aesthetic/psychological preference. If you can see those race/class combinations and it doesn't make you feel kinda gross (or at least give you that "stone in my shoe" feeling), there's really no way to explain it to you.

No, I get your POV. We just see what makes the game fun for us differently. For me the concept is everything and the more interesting it is the better. I don't even mind lower "numbers" in many cases because it makes the game a bit more challenging to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Honestly, it's totally irrelevant that I would be behind the other PCs. The issue is that I'm behind a better choice I could have made.

Well said. That’s another frequently misunderstood (and/or intentionally misrepresented) point.