D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[GMforPowergamers]

You prove my point with that argument. Goliaths all have +2 strength. Elves do not. An elf can roll an 18 and a Goliath can roll a 12+2 and get a 14. Generally Goliaths will be stronger than elves, though some elves will be stronger than an individual Goliath, despite ALL Goliaths having a strength bonus. A race being stronger just means that due to the strength bonus, the average member of that race will be stronger than the average member of the weaker race.

why? if this is true why not give men +1 str and women +1 wis?

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder how much this argument would have changed (or changed at all), if Tasha's had instituted a three-point system. What if:

Your Origin gives you a +1 to any stat of your choice
Your Background gives you a +1 to a fixed ability score (Adept = +1 Int, Acolyte = +1 Wis, Athlete = +1 Con, etc.)
Your Class gives you a +1 to the key ability score (Bard = +1 Cha, Cleric = +1 Wis, Fighter = +1 Str or +1 Dex, etc.)

Would this have solved this ability score issue, in your opinion, by spreading them out across the character build instead of concentrating them on "race" alone? Or do you think it would it have only exacerbated the problem, creating an incentive for players to cherry-pick all the options just to get an all-important +3 to Whatever?

Still woulda been a problem.

5e races are designed to match a 1990 paradigm but it's 2022.

 

[Krachek]

My point is mechanically the base D&D isn't balanced nor designed to work in non-sterotypical heavy roll or heavy hack n slash table without heavy DM adjudication or a 3rd party module.

The game encourage and offer the greatest variety of play style possible. I think it’s a design choice.
The balance is coherent with that, and right from the start they trace the line about balance, rolled stat is the first choice offered to players. You can’t expect too much balance from a design that right from the character creation may screw all balance attempt.

 

[Bill Zebub]

why? if this is true why not give men +1 str and women +1 wis?

I wonder if (some) people who staunchly defend racial ASIs secretly think there should be gender ASIs. It would logically follow. And I wouldn't blame them for keeping quiet about it.

On the other hand, if they understand and agree with the reason for not having gender ASIs, it makes me wonder why they don't extend that same logic to racial ASIs.

 

[Maxperson]

why? if this is true why not give men +1 str and women +1 wis?

Gary tried that and it was a mistake. Women would also have a con bonus. Additionally, we only have humans to go off of and so it would be unfair on that front as well. Racial bonuses are about as fine tuned as you want to get.

 

[Maxperson]

I wonder if (some) people who staunchly defend racial ASIs secretly think there should be gender ASIs. It would logically follow. And I wouldn't blame them for keeping quiet about it.

I doubt it. See my above post.

it makes me wonder why they don't extend that same logic to racial ASIs.

Because it doesn't apply. The players are male and female. They are not elves, dwarves, halflings and dragonborn. I'm pretty sure I dated a tiefling once, though.

So we have a situation where all players are human, so they all get the same human bonuses, and none of them are the other races, so it's fine to give those races different bonuses.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I wonder if (some) people who staunchly defend racial ASIs secretly think there should be gender ASIs. It would logically follow. And I wouldn't blame them for keeping quiet about it.

You “wonder” if people who disagree with you are “secretly” sexist? Yeah, that taste in your mouth is straw from that strawman you took a bite of.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Still woulda been a problem.

5e races are designed to match a 1990 paradigm but it's 2022.

Pretty much.

And it's very important to recognize that this was a design choice. The only reason it seems inconsistent to change it now is because we've been stuck with it for decades. There are people who still feel it is 'inconsistent' that species have the same XP table and can choose their class now because they are used to the other way.

There's no imperative for Racial ASIs to 'fit the fiction'; it's just that the d20 boom made the practice ubiquitous for a while.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I wonder if (some) people who staunchly defend racial ASIs secretly think there should be gender ASIs. It would logically follow. And I wouldn't blame them for keeping quiet about it.

On the other hand, if they understand and agree with the reason for not having gender ASIs, it makes me wonder why they don't extend that same logic to racial ASIs.

I don't extend the same logic to them because there is not an actual real world analogue for what racial ASI are representing unless you start including animals into the equation, and secondly is it not the point of having multiple races to produce a different experience with each? ASI aren't the best method to help represent how different species excell in certain specific areas but dont make perfect the enemy of good and all that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You “wonder” if people who disagree with you are “secretly” sexist? Yeah, that taste in your mouth is straw from that strawman you took a bite of.

D-Did you just correctly apply the term 'strawman' on the Enworld boards?

I've... I've never seen this before.

No sarcasm, my Philosophy Minor thanks you.

Edit: Philosophy is not Psychology, Firefox.