D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Minigiant]

Improved critical isn't that great, either. Just as boring as that +1 bonus for having a 16 strength and still a trivial amount of damage added.

A feat is much more fun and will have far more impact on the campaign.

Didn't say it wasn't boring.
Just that it isn't as minor as many make it out to be. +2 STR/DEX gets you a whole new damage rolls. The higher your damage the more the +2 adds. 5e is a game of compounding little things on each other to roll over things because the base is so simple. Especially if you use the grindy base assumption.

This is what I hate about the Battlemaster and all of his combat maneuvers. All of these rules creates the false impression that in order to do these stunts at all, you have to be a Battlemaster, or you have to have a certain feat, or you have to jump through a hoop. Maneuvers like pushing someone down, knocking their sword out of their hand, tripping them, etc., should be class-neutral. You should be able to just tell your DM what you are trying to do, and work with them to find a way to make it happen.

5e missed the opportunity of making most maneuvers base actions and have superiority dice adding on top of them. Even if the actions were optional.

I kinda wish Tasha's gave Superior Technique was avaialble to Paladins and Rangers and had options to swap multiple class features for manuevers and superiority dice.

 

[Maxperson]

Didn't say it wasn't boring.
Just that it isn't as minor as many make it out to be. +2 STR/DEX gets you a whole new damage rolls. The higher your damage the more the +2 adds. 5e is a game of compounding little things on each other to roll over things because the base is so simple. Especially if you use the grindy base assumption.

Both are as minor as I make them out to be. One extra damage roll every 2 to 5 fights is trivial. It's very unlikely to make a lick of difference in the fight it actually happens in. If you go to +2 it gets a little better, but it's still going to be a single extra hit every 1.25 to 2.5 fights. Not great.

5e missed the opportunity of making most maneuvers base actions and have superiority dice adding on top of them. Even if the actions were optional.

That would have been better I think.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I think some wires got crossed. I don't actually think the TCoE options break anything, or at least they aren't any worse than core PHB options (like the Moon Druid or the "coffeelock" Sorcerer/Warlock MC).

I agree with you that it's not broken, but have radically different reasons. I also think 5e is still unfortunately pretty unbalanced, mostly in the traditional D&D way of pretending that Wizards and other full casters are on a level playing field with Fighters and Rogues, when it's pretty clear to me both intuitively and mathematically that this is not true. So, while I don't think these things are OP, all I intended by what I said was that "Twilight cleric is overrated" doesn't mean "nothing in 5e is ever unbalanced" (because I think plenty is unbalanced, it just almost always favors full casters.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think some wires got crossed. I don't actually think the TCoE options break anything, or at least they aren't any worse than core PHB options (like the Moon Druid or the "coffeelock" Sorcerer/Warlock MC).

I agree with you that it's not broken, but have radically different reasons. I also think 5e is still unfortunately pretty unbalanced, mostly in the traditional D&D way of pretending that Wizards and other full casters are on a level playing field with Fighters and Rogues, when it's pretty clear to me both intuitively and mathematically that this is not true. So, while I don't think these things are OP, all I intended by what I said was that "Twilight cleric is overrated" doesn't mean "nothing in 5e is ever unbalanced" (because I think plenty is unbalanced, it just almost always favors full casters.)

I concur with much of this-- while I find Tasha's mostly OP, there is material in the PHB and other material which IMO is OP as well.

My issue about Tasha's is I was hoping for better balance. D&D has always had balance issues--I don't anyone will ever get it right (since it is an impossible task...).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So it's modelling racial essentialism and stating that stereotypes are actually true in the gameworld. That all halfings are jovial and dextrous by virtue of their race and you're never going to find a clumsy, surly halfling who is built like a brickhouse and can toss you across the room.

Ability scores are some of the the least prevalent of the racial essentialisms in D&D. They're a slight tendency, not an outright and obvious difference based on the race of the character.
I'm unsure if you're actually being honest or just engaging in hyperbole, but racial ASIs do not make all halflings jovial and dextrous by virtue of their race, and it is quite possible to find a clumsy, surly halfling who is built like a brickhouse and can toss you across the room. A halfling who has been working out and focusing on his Strength instead of his Dexterity can have a high strength even at start. A Str 15 halfling is the size and Strength of a 7-year old child who can deadlift both parents at the same time. That is legitimately strong and would be quite capable of tossing you across the room.

Compare with the racially essentialist absolutes currently in D&D: All Wood Elves are better at running than Dwarves. All Hill Dwarves can see in the dark better than humans can. Humans just don't naturally live as long as Wood Elves do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My issue about Tasha's is I was hoping for better balance. D&D has always had balance issues--I don't anyone will ever get it right (since it is an impossible task...).

I mean, 4e was an extremely well-balanced game, to the point that its detractors explicitly cast it as TOO balanced, treating balance as practically a four letter word. It got more acorn than the modern hate for "white room" arguments. The XP Budget system worked very well, skill challenges were rough to start but we're fixed up pretty well (especially if you used some of the fan advice on how to run them better), and the worst excesses of its "imbalance" usually meant either inappropriate amounts of healing or dealing like, twice as much damage as a normal character would. That's about it. Oh, or on the monster side, things like trying to run a dracolich at first level or the unfortunate collection of features on the needlefang drake.

So...no, it's not at all impossible to do. People are just rather attached to magic being broken and Fighters being kept in their ghetto.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean, 4e was an extremely well-balanced game, to the point that its detractors explicitly cast it as TOO balanced, treating balance as practically a four letter word.

No clue... never played 4E, or even seen it.

From what I have heard of it, I don't think I would have liked it because, and perhaps because it was so balanced, it sounded too structured.

 

[Minigiant]

Both are as minor as I make them out to be. One extra damage roll every 2 to 5 fights is trivial. It's very unlikely to make a lick of difference in the fight it actually happens in.

It's not bout number of fights. It's a damage thing.

Going for 12 hits a day to 13 hits a day is 8% more damage. And all 13 hits deal 1 more damage which jacks up damage to ~23%. More with weaker weapons.

So whatever you get for not matching with you prime score has to be worth 20% bonus damage. That's the balance between the 14 STR cleric and the 16 STR fighter. Until level 5, much of the power of fighters comes from having +1 to hit and 3-4 more attacks a day.

Some people will notice it. Some wont.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not bout number of fights. It's a damage thing.

Going for 12 hits a day to 13 hits a day is 8% more damage. And all 13 hits deal 1 more damage which jacks up damage to ~23%. More with weaker weapons.

The percentage isn't really all that relevant. It's like saying going from 1 point a day to 2 points a day is a 100% increase. Well, yes that's true, but it's still inconsequential. Looking at it as a percentage is deceptive. It tricks people into thinking that they are doing a lot better with damage when really it's a trivial increase. You get 1 hit for 7.5 extra damage somewhere in 2-5 fights, depending on if you've gotten extra attack or not, and the +1 damage per hit is an extra 11 points on top of that spread out over same number of fights.

The difference it will make in combats is negligible. It sounds good on paper if you look at it as a percentage increase, but it's not really good at all. It's insignificant.

 

[Campbell]

In my experience it's not like most players think 'I'd like to be an elf barbarian' and then reject it. I know I usually either start with a race or a class in mind. Then I consider my options from there. There are so many race and class combinations where the stats align you can almost always find something that would be fun to roleplay. It's not even that the filtering even happens on a conscious level. It's just player psychology.

I don't actually mind the systems that were in place before Tasha's. I just understand the psychology of it. People naturally respond to incentives. You can lament that people think and process this stuff the way they do, accept the results as is, or change systems to account for it. I'm pretty much fine with either of the last two. Trying to fight against basic player psychology almost never works.