D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Amrûnril]

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.

I think there are plenty of reasons outside optimization to prefer flexible ASIs over racially determined ones. Suppose for the sake of argument, though, that it is all about optimization- that the +1 or +2 really is trivial in any other context. In that case, if the ASI rules really only matter for optimization, shouldn't they be designed in the way that's most fun to people who are invested in that aspect of the game?

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah however most of those races and traits don't exist in 5e yet. And 3.5 was overly harsh if you got 2 bonuses.

It was overly harsh, which is why in 3.5 I had a standing rule that LA +1 was okay to take without talking to me, but anything higher you need my approval on. And then I didn't apply level adjustment. I simply gave them the race with no penalty if I was okay with the power level for that campaign.

The tiefling's LA+1 wasn't justified for it's +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma, darkness, some resists.

I think it was warranted. Darkness used well is very strong, especially early on. Unbalanced stat bonuses, with dex and int being very good stats for 3e, darkvision 60, resists in 3 energies, two of them the most common type, darkness, and +2 to bluff and hide(very useful skills), warranted the +1 LA.

 

[Oofta]

I think there are plenty of reasons outside optimization to prefer flexible ASIs over racially determined ones. Suppose for the sake of argument, though, that it is all about optimization- that the +1 or +2 really is trivial in any other context. In that case, if the ASI rules really only matter for optimization, shouldn't they be designed in the way that's most fun to people who are invested in that aspect of the game?

I think there are trade-offs. There are only so many ways to give the different races unique identity and make them feel different both in expectations and play. Would it be more fun if everyone started out with a 20 in every ability score? For some people, sure.

But it's also the old argument. The sole reason to want a +2 in your primary stat is so that 1 in 20 times you will succeed at something important to you that you would have otherwise failed. Dress it up how you like, but it is about optimization*. That doesn't mean that the person that wants that optimization is a power gamer. Or that power gamers are inherently bad for that matter.

*Unless someone can explain why it's not other than "it's just not true" or "somebody already explained it, so I'm not going to repeat or link to that explanation."

 

[Weiley31]

When I DM, I house rule that all Battle Master Combat Maneuvers can be used by all martial classes if learned by a trainer. The only difference is, and to avoid stepping on toes, is that ONLY the Battle Master gets the Dice Scaling for their Superiority Die and they learn the most. Everybody else can learn a number of Combat Maneuvers up to their INT Modifier and everybody is stuck with a D6. I may/may not have it where the number of Superiority Die is equal to half of your Proficiency. (So non-Battle Masters martials gain up to three Superiority Die once they hit a Proficiency Score of 6).

 

[Willie the Duck]

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.

Really, because I had a pretty specific point above about it having nothing to do with what the numerical output of the scores meant and more about communicated norms.

And I think that is really a major focus of the issue for people who don't spend their time on D&D-focused message boards, and don't care if the +1 modifier is +5% or +20-30% or whatever*. A system in which attributes highly influence success in a given class; which has array/point buy such that you can get to +2 mod max, or +3 if you choose a synergistic race*; communicates a benchmark of what well-inhabits the role of 'I am playing a reasonably competent starting <class>' completely irrespective of how much that influences your in-game success. Can the game be played thoroughly successfully starting with a +2 mod? Absolutely**. But it still comes with the framing of you could have started one notch higher if you'd chosen a race that complements a given class.
*none of these comparisons are going to include all the necessary context anyways. A +1 Dex Mod isn't just to-hit and damage for an archer, it is initiative, AC, saves, and skills. An Int Mod for a wizard is variety of spells prepared every morning. A Bard get to use his primary unique ability more times per rest for each +1 Cha mod. The number of context-qualifiers in the model are immense.
**Or for rolled stats maxes of +4 and +5, respectively.
***On default difficulty and if you retreat when in over your head, most options are playable, minus deliberate worst-build thought experiments.

I think that speaks to a real shift in the starting 5e-- when the designers thought they were trying to make the most D&D of all D&Ds and bring back the prodigals from all the previous editions-- to now that it has been a runaway success and bringing in so much new blood. They initially assumed people wanted to hew to the old format of you choosing a halfling if you wanted to be a thief, a half-orc if you wanted to run up and hit things with (sometimes metal-tipped) sticks, and so on. The ne influx came along and said (roughly) 'no thanks, why have two separate choice tracks if you aren't supposed to do a many-to-many join and try out all the different results?'

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think that power creep on classes that were weaker before is a legitimate concern. In many cases, the class archetypes in the PHB are those that are the most commonly associated with those classes, so having to choose between playing the archetype that you want, or an archetype that is more powerful but more peripheral is something that would frustrate me as a player. This is all the more the case where, as another poster pointed out, for some classes, some of the new mechanics are more complicated or require additional tracking.

this is what drives me nuts... I can't see increase the power of the weakest few as powercreep. If a party of 5 druids were OKAY before then any monk or fighter raised to the power level of a druid should be okay now.

As a specific example, if I am playing a Monk, I am doing so either for the Avatar 4e archetype or for the kung fu Open Hand archetype. I would not be interested in playing either an Astral Self or a Way of Mercy monk.

As someone who likes the Wild mage sorcerer, this is also true for the sorcerer class.

So, power creep can be a concern even of it is just the weaker classes that are brought up.

except there are people who want to play the concept of a monk or sorcerer but look at cleric druid and wizard and get annoyed at being so far behind... so when you make a Sorcerer subclass closer to the Druid power level you open up more players

 

[Irlo]

But it's also the old argument. The sole reason to want a +2 in your primary stat is so that 1 in 20 times you will succeed at something important to you that you would have otherwise failed. Dress it up how you like, but it is about optimization*. That doesn't mean that the person that wants that optimization is a power gamer. Or that power gamers are inherently bad for that matter.

*Unless someone can explain why it's not other than "it's just not true" or "somebody already explained it, so I'm not going to repeat or link to that explanation."

More important for my fun are class features (admittedly few) that have a number of uses based on the ability score modifier.

But otherwise here’s how I see it. With fixed ASIs, certain races are optimized for certain classes. With floating ASIs, no race is optimized for a certain class (at least as far as ability scores are concerned). That leads to less concern with optimization, not more.

 

[Minigiant]

The sole reason to want a +2 in your primary stat is so that 1 in 20 times you will succeed at something important to you that you would have otherwise faile

The main reason is because +2 to a secondary or tertiary ability score is either a lot lower in value or extremely variable by play style, flavor, or genre.

5e's ability score and primary score system is game design like 1990s video game or a gacha mobile game. It was design to be simple, not to encourage variation of character archetypes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

this is what drives me nuts... I can't see increase the power of the weakest few as powercreep. If a party of 5 druids were OKAY before then any monk or fighter raised to the power level of a druid should be okay now.

As a Sorcerer, I don’t care that the Druid has Wildshape or the Paladin has smites: my niche is that I am a better Face than either of them and a better blaster.

I do care if a new Sorcerer comes out that occupies the same niche as I do and has more spells and stronger subclass features. Particularly if the reason I choose to play a Sorcerer is that I think the Dragon Sorcerer concept is cool and don’t want to play an Aberrant Mind.

I think the best expression of this is from Xanathar’s. I don’t like the Hexblade. It’s tonally incoherant and ALL EDGE, but it is a clearly superior choice for Blade Pact Warlocks over Feylocks and Fiendlocks, despite the fact that Fey and Fiend patrons are more iconic in the lore.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a Sorcerer, I don’t care that the Druid has Wildshape or the Paladin has smites: my niche is that I am a better Face than either of them and a better blaster.

as a fighter I care if you get 10 options and can interact with more of the system then I do just becuse you wrote 'druid' under class. So I want a fighter (or a class that fits the theme of weapon user) that can do as much as well as a druid... and it annoys me to no end that people say "but the first fighter couldn't so why should any"

I do care if a new Sorcerer comes out that occupies the same niche as I do and has more spells and stronger subclass features.

if the new sorcerer is not more powerful then other classes I don't care.

I think the best expression of this is from Xanathar’s. I don’t like the Hexblade. It’s tonally incoherant and ALL EDGE, but it is a clearly superior choice for Blade Pact Warlocks over Feylocks and Fiendlocks, despite the fact that Fey and Fiend patrons are more iconic in the lore.

so what is the alternative... all warlocks can't have cha based melee attacks and as such have to be more MAD then wizards?