D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[James Gasik]

Yeah, even in AD&D the max press for Strength was only 480 lb., which made no sense to me since the established world-record at that point was over 500 lb.

The limitations never bothered me (still down) because I know (for humans anyway) they are based in reality. I won't say more than that about it, though.

As for other races, which have no "reality", PCs could be as limited or not as the game designers intended. In that sense, FWIW, I have no issue if a table plays RAW with no limits on STR-carry weight based on race or sex because it is a fantasy world so maybe the "humans" in your world have a slightly different make-up than humans in the real world? Personally, I don't like to play that way, but others of course and do as they please and will get no argument from me (maybe a discussion, but no argument).


Yes, two-weapon fighting was brutal in 2E if you built for it, especially after the splat-book surge and the CFH came out.

And it's never been good since!

 

[James Gasik]

When is an issue an issue? It's an eternal question. I find even if something comes up that's a non-issue in my games, to at least try and figure out what's happening to make it a problem for someone else. An ounce of prevention being worth a dose of cure and all that.

Which means it's time for....another boring old gaming story!

Back in 3.x, a friend of mine that played D&D, but that I didn't play with personally, was griping about Monks. After making sure he hadn't been replaced by a doppleganger, I asked him what was going on.

Because everyone knows Monks are just plain weird.

It turned out his Barbarian didn't Rage and used a bow, his Fighter used a Tower Shield, and the Wizard was the Monk's boyfriend, so he was constantly throwing Enlarge, Mage Armor, and Bull's Strength at her.

Plus, my friend used very generous die rolling since he felt the game was more fun with stronger characters.

As a result, the Monk turned into a Cuisinart, especially once she found a Shocking Kama.

A Giant Lady Cuisinart, to be precise.

Which just goes to show that table variance matters.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't say Combat is the more important pillar.

I choose my words very carefully. I said : "combat is the most frequent and most impactful pillar of the game (unless the DM states otherwise)"

Combat in 5th edition by default has the most rolls and failure usually equals death, theft, or capture. Your DM would have to go out of their way to have more Exploration rolls and Social Rolls than Combat rolls and give them higher stakes. And any DM who does this would be so far off the norm that they would have to inform the players at Session Zero.

I disagree with you that number of rolls is the metric. Combat is quantity. Exploration and social are quality. Quality over quantity. You may get less rolls, but the rolls are more important in the exploration and social pillars unless the DM makes it otherwise. One social roll can get the king to move entire armies, persuade the barkeep to give you needed information to find the BBEG or any number of other important things.

One attack roll will almost never have that kind of meaning. Even if you kill a creature with that roll, it took several rolls to get there and it just means maybe some treasure. The impact it has on the game at large has little meaning. A PC death or TPK takes many, many, MANY rolls and will often not have the same impact as the one social or exploration roll.

5th edition is not 30 years old. I'm only talking about 5t edition.

5th edition is not unique this way. The other two pillars have always had more impact for the fewer rolls you got.

3rd edition and 4th edition has base, core, early, and easy ways to make almost every ability score matter in every pillar. 4th edition makes multiple exploration and social rolls core via skill challenges.

5th edition does not do this at base. Your DM either has to use an official or unofficial variant rule to do this. This was done on purpose to make the edition simpler and empower DMs.

The importance of the social and exploration pillars is inherent in the game. You have to explore to get to the encounters, treasure, BBEG, find the McGuffin, etc. You have to social to find information on the encounters, BBEG, McGuffin, get what you want that shifts the course of the campaign, etc.

3e and 4e has base "Charisma Check to Demoralize" with rules for it. 5e doesn't and makes it a DM adjudication. So until the DM tells the player their style, the player is in the dark on Int/Cha usefulness in combat and their experience of it will automatically vary greatly between tables.

Okay. Combat is the weakest pillar with regard to impact on the game. Whether the DM has strong intimidation or weak intimidation in combat isn't really important, because charisma is far more important than str, dex or con outside of combat.

 

[James Gasik]

At least, it should be more important, but I've played in games where I'm still asked to make far more Str and Dex checks outside of combat than Charisma.

Wisdom checks are still king though.

 

[Minigiant]

disagree with you that number of rolls is the metric. Combat is quantity. Exploration and social are quality. Quality over quantity. You may get less rolls, but the rolls are more important in the exploration and social pillars unless the DM makes it otherwise. One social roll can get the king to move entire armies, persuade the barkeep to give you needed information to find the BBEG or any number of other important things.

One attack roll will almost never have that kind of meaning. Even if you kill a creature with that roll, it took several rolls to get there and it just means maybe some treasure. The impact it has on the game at large has little meaning. A PC death or TPK takes many, many, MANY rolls and will often not have the same impact as the one social or exploration rol

That's um my point.

STR and DEX ultimately are always, present constant, and have great impacts.

INT and CHA,? Unless you are a caster, it depends on the DM, the tone, the flavor, and the playstyls.

Some DMs are stingy with knowledge roll gains or attitude changes. Some DMs are swinging with it. Some DMs require one roll others 4 rolls.

But the greataxe deals 1d12+STR always and often.

5th edition is not unique this way. The other two pillars have always had more impact for the fewer rolls you got.

Depends.

Again this isn't about individual tables but most tables as a whole. Combat is the most consistent, reliable, and easy to gauge pillar

The importance of the social and exploration pillars is inherent in the game. You have to explore to get to the encounters, treasure, BBEG, find the McGuffin, etc. You have to social to find information on the encounters, BBEG, McGuffin, get what you want that shifts the course of the campaign, etc.

You don't actually.
Again pure hack and slash is a listed playstyls in the DMG.

Some groups JUST kick doors and kill stuff.

Okay. Combat is the weakest pillar with regard to impact on the game. Whether the DM has strong intimidation or weak intimidation in combat isn't really important, because charisma is far more important than str, dex or con outside of combat

Umm..

You can die in Combat.

 

[Maxperson]

At least, it should be more important, but I've played in games where I'm still asked to make far more Str and Dex checks outside of combat than Charisma.

Wisdom checks are still king though.

Yeah. Individual DMs will vary, but typically I've found it to be the case that the exploration and social pillars are far more important to the campaign than combat rolls. Quality over quantity.

 

[Maxperson]

That's um my point.

STR and DEX ultimately are always, present constant, and have great impacts.

INT and CHA,? Unless you are a caster, it depends on the DM, the tone, the flavor, and the playstyls.

Some DMs are stingy with knowledge roll gains or attitude changes. Some DMs are swinging with it. Some DMs require one roll others 4 rolls.

But the greataxe deals 1d12+STR always and often.

Depends.

Again this isn't about individual tables but most tables as a whole. Combat is the most consistent, reliable, and easy to gauge pillar


You don't actually.
Again pure hack and slash is a listed playstyls in the DMG.

Yes. I've heard of this mythical Hack and Slash playstyle, but as I said, I haven't encountered it since 1984 when I was in junior high and we still liked that sort of thing. By high school things were shifting and by 1988 it had fallen away. I'm sure some tables still do it, but from my observations at dozens and dozens of game conventions and personal experience in games I run or play in tells me that it's a pretty rare play style.

Umm..

You can die in Combat.

Which typically has no impact on the campaign. You make a new guy and continue on. Heck, often you make a whole new party and continue on if you TPK. The vast majority of the time combat has minimal impact on the direction of the campaign. And individual combat rolls even less so.

In non-hack and slash games, mental stats and the other two pillars are king. Quality over quantity. And in 5e, this applies to all classes, including fighters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I reveal a secret about combat optimisation: it doesn't matter, the gain in power is an illusion. The GM has endless amount of trolls and dragons. If you min-max your characters to be insane combat monsters that effortlessly dismantle the enemies, the GM will just use harder encounters the next time. You can't 'win D&D' by optimised DPS.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah. Individual DMs will vary, but typically I've found it to be the case that the exploration and social pillars are far more important to the campaign than combat rolls. Quality over quantity.

Believe me, I'd love for this to be the case. What I think trips a lot of games up is determining what you can do with a Charisma check, and setting appropriate DC's. It's anecdotal, but it does happen that a menacing Goliath Barbarian who wishes to intimidate some Goblins is asked to roll at DC 15 and up, when they possess a +3 modifier.

 

[James Gasik]

I reveal a secret about combat optimisation: it doesn't matter, the gain in power is an illusion. The GM has endless amount of trolls and dragons. If you min-max your characters to be insane combat monsters that effortlessly dismantle the enemies, the GM will just use harder encounters the next time. You can't 'win D&D' by optimised DPS.

You can however, lose by un-optimised DPS. Not every DM, sadly, is good at figuring out how to adjust their games if the players under-perform.