D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I just want to make sure you realize the quote I was contesting:

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.

Now, if they had just said, "The vast majority of people tend to prefer races that have stats that work well with their class and subclass" I would agree with them, and with you.

But they went on to hypothesize about why those people are making that choice, and not in a very flattering way.

 

[Horwath]

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.

unfortunately, this is pretty solid evidence that race is picked due to +2 bonus.
Human is a good baseline to see general preference of what race people want to play.

Big 4 are in the top, with slight difference that barbarian managed to squeeze infront of cleric. Guess no one want's to be a heal bot.
Druid is last with humans, maybe people do see humans as somewhat civilized and leave tree worshiping to elves.
Also pre tasha's, there is really no go-to feat for variant human to take. Now, Fey touched(goes very well in theme to a druid) with Fey step+Silvery barbs will go a long way to increase druid population with humans, telekinetic is not bad if you want to be a "troll" druid in rolepay

but half elf is very represented in Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock department. Thing is, if you want to play those 4 classes, outside variant human OFC, half elf is clear winner in mechanics.

Rogue is also highly represented in half elf population as rogues can make quite good utility in charisma stat, expertise in cha skills.

Ranger is little higher than I would expected for a half elf, but we can attribute that to Tolkien with Elrond, Aragorn and rest of Dunedine rangers.

 

[Medic]

I just want to make sure you realize the quote I was contesting:

When framed this way, I better understand your reasoning.

unfortunately, this is pretty solid evidence that race is picked due to +2 bonus.
Human is a good baseline to see general preference of what race people want to play.

Good write-up overall. I just tend to shy away from declaring evidence as conclusive. That said, and this is speculation, the number of half-elf rogues and rangers could partially be due to the fact that they come with skill versatility. Being a skill monkey and a diet skill monkey respectively, selecting half-elf for two free proficiencies and darkvision likely adds some appeal to both combinations.

 

[Minigiant]

The racial abilities should be picked because you enjoy playing that race, so you come out ahead in fun. The +2, +1 to secondary abilities will likely give you better saves in some area, so you still benefit.

That's the point.

The non-Ability Score Racial traits in 5e SUCK
That's why everyone focuses on the +1 and +2.

One ofthe great points about 1e and 4e is that your non-score racial traits could makeup for nonmatching ability scores. But in 5e following behind 3e's lead, made race traits sooooooo weak. Nah, my tielfling's spells don't make up for the -1 STR difference.

In my last game of 5e as a DM, I gave everyone one of their race feats for free.

 

[Horwath]

Good write-up overall. I just tend to shy away from declaring evidence as conclusive. That said, and this is speculation, the number of half-elf rogues and rangers could partially be due to the fact that they come with skill versatility. Being a skill monkey and a diet skill monkey respectively, selecting half-elf for two free proficiencies and darkvision likely adds some appeal to both combinations.

I didn't focus on +2 skills and darkvision as that is useful to any class.

As oppose to wood elf Mask of the wild only add something if you invest in dex and stealth.
+5ft move works for any class on the other hand.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are many, many posts saying that people refuse to play race X because they didn't get a +2 in the primary ability of their chosen class.

Find three of them.

There are plenty of posts saying that people refuse to play race X with class y because they didn't get +1 in their chosen class - but I have seen precisely zero saying they needed +2

And this is because people will do things without a bonus - but doing things with a penalty is bad. And thanks to the way 5e is written if you have a +0 in your primary stat then you have a penalty.

This shows up in two areas.

1. The non-variant human has +1 to all stats. Which means that if you do not have at least a +1 then you are below the human baseline
2. With standard array, point buy, and about half of all rolled characters having a +0 puts you an entire ability bonus behind a baseline non-variant human (or even variant human) in your main stat.

This means that a +0 is, both against baseline humans and against benchmarks the equivalent of having an outright penalty in older editions.

To put this in 3.5 terms, a 5e dwarf wizard both mechanically and thematically isn't the equivalent of a 3.5 dwarf wizard (with +0 Int) but a 3.5 dwarf sorcerer or bard (with -2 Cha). So they are rare.

When +1 is your baseline then +0 is a penalty.

 

[the Jester]

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?

No, but pretty much every time, the conversation goes, "It's not about optimization, it's about making sure I have that +2 where I want it" (which is to say, where it's optimal). I honestly haven't seen a single argument that doesn't boil down to that.

I'm pretty sure that they are using some definition of optimization that this somehow doesn't fit, so it's not about bad faith, it's about perception. Those who are saying that it's not about optimization are seeing it differently than I am.

But I still haven't heard any argument that I perceive as anything other than about optimizing your character. "I want to be able to play a half-orc wizard" overlooks the fact that you can do so without a +2 Int, and that there have been half-orc wizards in the PH since 3e. "You have to be able to keep up" is about optimizing.

 

[Maxperson]

That's the point.

The non-Ability Score Racial traits in 5e SUCK
That's why everyone focuses on the +1 and +2.

One ofthe great points about 1e and 4e is that your non-score racial traits could makeup for nonmatching ability scores. But in 5e following behind 3e's lead, made race traits sooooooo weak. Nah, my tielfling's spells don't make up for the -1 STR difference.

In my last game of 5e as a DM, I gave everyone one of their race feats for free.

3e's racial traits were not weak. I mean, that's why they brought in Level Adjustment. I also disagree with 5e. I mean, I agree with you to an extent. They are weaker than 3e(never played 4e), but they are still often more interesting and fun to me than killing a single bugbear slightly faster ever 2.5 to 5 fights.

I give a free feat of the player's choice at 1st level. Not to make up for anything, but because feats are fun.

 

[Vaalingrade]

3e's racial traits were not weak. I mean, that's why they brought in Level Adjustment.

That, and discourage playing monsters.

 

[Minigiant]

3e's racial traits were not weak. I

I said Nonabilty Score racial traits.

The Nonabilty Score traits were weak.
The Ability scores were powerful. That's why you got LAs.