D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Horwath]

The standard point buy costs are better I think. I just extended the table to allow 16 to be bought with 12 points.

I like 3.5e costs better, as there is not floating +1 for 13 score, it's better that 14 and 16 are a bit cheaper

 

[Maxperson]

I just don't see that as a big deal at all. The fact that it's changed in past editions is proof that the "types" that the races have are quite fluid.

Like, if I want to play a tiefling, I'll play a tiefling because I want to be a fiend-blooded humanoid that is possibly descriminated against by humans and other races because of their infernal heritage. To me, that tells way more of a story than "they have a bonus to charisma" does. They still have a "type" even if they don't have "naturally charismatic". If you play a Zariel Tiefling you know that you're descended from a fallen solar that switched sides in the cosmic battlefield to help win the Blood War. If you play a Mammon Tiefling you know that your ancestral archfiend is a master con artist that always gets the good end of the bargain and has a treasure trove bigger than any dragon's hoard. If you play a Changeling you know that you can shapeshift at will and people might mistrust you for that.

All of that tells way more important and compelling stories than "my race has slightly bigger muscles/better eyesight/quicker reflexes than the average person".

I didn't say all types were removed, but removing a type is still removing a type. Without the fixed stats it's no longer possible for a weak goliath to be against type. Or a clumsy drow to be against type. And so on. It moves the races closer towards the generic.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Goliaths are still known as big, strong guys and a weak one is still against type without Player Character rules on their stats. NPC goliaths can all still be built leaning toward strength.

The PCs are not exemplars of their species; they're individuals who are quite literally 'built different'.

 

[Maxperson]

If you are going to distill an entire race down to a single word, and that single word happens to be one of the six D&D attributes, then, yeah, you're right. But you're almost willfully making your prophecy come true.

I did not distill them down to a single word. I specified "type dealing with charisma" which leaves other Tiefling types out there still.

Also, if you define races that way, that means Elves are just "Dextrous Elves" and Halflings are just "Dextrous Halflings", and so your other prophecy has already been fulfilled: there is no difference between races; they are just humans in funny hats.

And Strawmen are just twisted arguments.

I not only did not distill them down to just stats, I explicitly said in my posts that they are closer(but all the way) to being generic, so in fact did not say they were just humans in funny hats.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the racial definitions that require entire pages of fluff and are backed up by unique racial abilities.

 

[Maxperson]

Goliaths are still known as big, strong guys and a weak one is still against type without Player Character rules on their stats. NPC goliaths can all still be built leaning toward strength.

The PCs are not exemplars of their species; they're individuals who are quite literally 'built different'.

From the PHB page 17

"RACIAL TRAITS
The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races.

ABILITY SCORE INCREASE
Every race increases one or more of a character's ability scores."

It literally says they are not built differently. And in no edition that I've played have they ever been built differently.

 

[Horwath]

I abilities would be used only for skills and other ability checks and attacks, damage, saves, DCs would be based on proficiency bonus or double proficiency when appropriate, no one would mind fixed racial ASIs

 

[Vaalingrade]

From the PHB page 17

"RACIAL TRAITS
The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races.

ABILITY SCORE INCREASE
Every race increases one or more of a character's ability scores."

It literally says they are not built differently. And in no edition that I've played have they ever been built differently.

Do you literally build every NPC from the PH rules for their species?

 

[Oofta]

Goliaths are still known as big, strong guys and a weak one is still against type without Player Character rules on their stats. NPC goliaths can all still be built leaning toward strength.

The PCs are not exemplars of their species; they're individuals who are quite literally 'built different'.

Only because they have been known as that in the past. If every goliath a player ever encounters in play is a PC, which is quite likely, there's no reason to think that goliaths will not retain that identity. Most people don't read fluff, even fewer read fluff on races they have no interest in playing. They get their impression of goliaths (or other races) from what people bring to the table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Goliaths are still known as big, strong guys and a weak one is still against type without Player Character rules on their stats. NPC goliaths can all still be built leaning toward strength.

The PCs are not exemplars of their species; they're individuals who are quite literally 'built different'.

Then I don’t understand why we have bespoke rules for species at all. If the PC are “unique and different” why doesn’t this apply to the traits as well? Why not just have a pool of traits you can choose from and fluff it like you wish. If a halfling PC can be an unique individual who is as strong as a half-orc, why a half-orc PC cannot be an unique individual who’s as brave as a halfling?

Choose some consistent logic on which the design principles are based, this sort of incoherence is just infuriating.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Only because they have been known as that in the past.

~Looks at goliath art featuring big hulking strong dudes universally~

Alright, fam.