D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Bill Zebub]

This seems to ignore other mods that move the totals past 20.

I get what you're saying, but that's already taken into account.

Let's say you are attacking AC 16. If you have Str 14 and PB 2, you will hit on any roll 12 or higher. That's 9/20 odds.

With an additional +1 you hit on an 11 or higher. That's 10/20 odds.

Now let's say you're still attacking AC 16, but you're 9th level, with Str 18 and PB 4. Now you hit on an 8 or higher, for 13/20.

Again, if you add +1 you hit on a 7 or higher, for 14/20.

In both cases, your odds of hitting when up by 1/20.

But what that does mean is that relative gain gets smaller. 9/20 to 10/20 is an 11% increase. 13/20 to 14/20 is a 7.6% increase.

(Then the actual increase is damage is higher, because all of those attacks do one additional damage.)

 

[Campbell]

The actual impact of the numbers does not matter. How character creation feels is what matters. The vast majority of people who tend to prefer races that have stats that work well with their class and subclass are not doing a cost-benefit analysis. They just want to feel good about the choice they are making. It's not a particularly rational decision. It just feels off.

Like I said I don't mind the way things stand, but saying players need to collectively get past the psychological barrier is not actually going to help them do so. It's generally not a rational or conscious choice. Knowing the impact is fairly minimal still does not make it feel better.

This is like trying to address "balance" problems between martials and spell casters through tuning numbers. Balance complaints are generally not coming from the raw numbers. It's the lack of play of the game type moments. You have to address the player psychology first if the issue is important enough to a large enough pool of players.

 

[Fenris-77]

What do you mean?

Well, the target number isn't 1 to 20 when DC to hit scales to whatever, 30. Its small potatoes. My main issue is that the +1 damage only works as advertised by itself. Most combat characters are getting what, +6, or more? The +1 math doesn't work as advertised in that context. Or at least I think it doesn't.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The vast majority of people who tend to prefer races that have stats that work well with their class and subclass are not doing a cost-benefit analysis. They just want to feel good about the choice they are making. It's not a particularly rational decision. It just feels off.

That's a rather sweeping (and, I assume, mostly data-less) generalization.

Just think of all the fun we could have hypothesizing about the psychology of people who pick sub-optimal race/class combinations.

Or....maybe you could stick with telling us how you make decisions, and how it feels to you, and let others do the same for themselves?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Well, the target number isn't 1 to 20 when DC to hit scales to whatever, 30. Its small potatoes. My main issue is that the +1 damage only works as advertised by itself. Most combat characters are getting what, +6, or more? The +1 math doesn't work as advertised in that context. Or at least I think it doesn't.

I'm not following you.

Think of it this way: the +1 on your attack roll is going to make some difference, right? Yes, it's variable, and the exact value depends on the AC you're trying to hit, and the total of your other bonuses. Which is why the total benefit is often presented as a range of values. (And, even then, there are edge cases above and below those ranges.)

 

[Fenris-77]

As far as damage goes I dont think the +1 example in isolation doesn't mean as much. If I already have a +4 or +5 to damage, and then I add plus one the math changes.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As far as damage goes I dont think the +1 example in isolation doesn't mean as much. If I already have a +4 or +5 to damage, and then I add plus one the math changes.

Yes, that's true. Going from 19 to 20 does not provide as much benefit as going from 15 to 16, in terms of an overall % increase in damage. Also, if you have 18 or 20 Strength you are much more likely to also have a magic weapon, further diluting that +1.

In all my models I've been basing it on the jump from 15 to 16, and mostly focusing on lower levels (since anybody can get 20 Strength eventually).

 

[Horwath]

I don't. I'm just hoping to show people how irrelevant it is in hopes that they might start taking more enjoyable options that make a larger difference in the game. I like helping people.

I get that. That is very nice of you.

On that note, we had a friend playing a half elf barbarian, with tasha's floating ability OFC

But he wanted to have all round useful character, so in point buy(we use it 100%), he took 13,13,13,12,12,12, with +2/+1/+1 it went to:

str 15
dex 14
con 14
int 12
wis 12
cha 12

with 4th level feat being skill expert for 16 str, one extra skill(cant remember what) and expertise in perception.
so at 4th level a barbarian had 8 skills and one expertise and was out party face and wilderness scout.
Great character IMHO

yes, at 4th level he could have taken some "combat" half-feat and have a 18,16,16,8,8,8 but didn't. hit total modifiers were +10 instead of +7.

But, it was nice that he had OPTION to do so. Maybe next time he will make more "focused" character, maybe not. But having more options is always better.

 

[Medic]

That's a rather sweeping (and, I assume, mostly data-less) generalization.

Is it, though? The source is a bit dated, but the information seems to mesh with that conclusion quite nicely. This is pulled from D&DBeyond, pre-Tasha.

Rogue, wizard, and ranger seem to be popular picks for elves, who have +2 to Dexterity and either Intelligence or Wisdom, while there are nowhere near as many elf barbarians. Dwarves gravitate toward fighter, barbarian and cleric thanks to their bonuses, whereas dwarf bards and sorcerers are comparatively few.

I wouldn't venture as far as to say that it's definitive proof that a majority of players think the same way, but it's certainly not unreasonable to conclude that someone would want to be a warlock, see that base tieflings have +2 charisma, and decide that they will be a tiefling warlock, no further thoughts on the matter.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, the target number isn't 1 to 20 when DC to hit scales to whatever, 30. Its small potatoes. My main issue is that the +1 damage only works as advertised by itself. Most combat characters are getting what, +6, or more? The +1 math doesn't work as advertised in that context. Or at least I think it doesn't.

It does. DCs scale to 30, but AC doesn't. You can hit +6 to hit at 1st level if you start with an 18 in your prime stat. The +1/5% math works on any AC of 26 or less at that point. You are hitting a 26 with a roll of 20. 1 in 20 hits. Add +1 for a 20 in the stat and you now hit on a 19 or 20, which is 5% better.

How many creatures with those kinds of ACs are low level PCs going to encounter? A CR 21 Solar has an AC of 21. A CR 19 Balor has a 19. Heck, the freaking CR 30 Tarrasque only has a 25 AC. For all intents and purposes the math works unless the DM creates a creature with an AC out of range of the PC or the AC is so low that +1 makes no difference since you are auto hitting anyway.

Ultimately it doesn't matter, though. As I've shown, the amount of extra damage while sounding impressive at a 20+% increase, is really a piddly increase in actual damage and really not noticeable.