D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[James Gasik]

But the bar is incredibly low. Like if you have 14 in your main stat you're set. This was in the context of ASIs, so I interpreted it as the players not floating the ASIs to their main stat being an issue. Sorry if that wasn't what you meant. (And it seems it wasn't.)

No it's cool, I realize that in most cases, it seems as if you have to be trying to make a bad character, but sometimes things that sound cool to people just aren't until they get some system mastery under their belt. Like Berserkers, arguably Assassins (can be cool, some players struggle with them), and my personal pet peeve, Wild Magic Sorcerers. I played one thinking it would be hilarious. Most of the time I felt like my class features (which were only useful some of the time) were locked behind a wall of me having to constantly ask the DM if I can have Tides of Chaos refreshed.

And even those examples are fine, but you could totally get a guy who decides to play a non-variant Human 15 Dex Fighter in Medium Armor who uses a shield and a rapier, goes Champion, and then decides at level 4 to multiclass into something random like Bard. Even in this example the character would probably be alright if the DM softballed the enemies, but it's rare that the entire group is built this way.

So our poor hypothetical Fighter could find himself in a party with a Variant Human Oath of Vengeance Paladin with 16 Strength and Heavy Armor Mastery who takes less damage, deals more damage, and has an endless array of cool-sounding special features and wonder what he's doing wrong.

 

[Bill Zebub]

So our poor hypothetical Fighter could find himself in a party with a Variant Human Oath of Vengeance Paladin with 16 Strength and Heavy Armor Mastery who takes less damage, deals more damage, and has an endless array of cool-sounding special features and wonder what he's doing wrong.

I will add that while I think it’s never ok to berate somebody for having a non-optimized character, neither do I think protecting their feelings is a reason to not optimize your own character, if that’s what you enjoy.

I mean, once again it’s the Jerk Principle: don’t be a jerk, and don’t play with jerks. Rules won’t prevent jerks from being jerky.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No it's cool, I realize that in most cases, it seems as if you have to be trying to make a bad character, but sometimes things that sound cool to people just aren't until they get some system mastery under their belt. Like Berserkers, arguably Assassins (can be cool, some players struggle with them), and my personal pet peeve, Wild Magic Sorcerers. I played one thinking it would be hilarious. Most of the time I felt like my class features (which were only useful some of the time) were locked behind a wall of me having to constantly ask the DM if I can have Tides of Chaos refreshed.

And even those examples are fine, but you could totally get a guy who decides to play a non-variant Human 15 Dex Fighter in Medium Armor who uses a shield and a rapier, goes Champion, and then decides at level 4 to multiclass into something random like Bard. Even in this example the character would probably be alright if the DM softballed the enemies, but it's rare that the entire group is built this way.

So our poor hypothetical Fighter could find himself in a party with a Variant Human Oath of Vengeance Paladin with 16 Strength and Heavy Armor Mastery who takes less damage, deals more damage, and has an endless array of cool-sounding special features and wonder what he's doing wrong.

A person can accidentally create a character that might not be as effective as they'd like, and definitely one that is less effective than some other characters. But I don't think that would still lead to the party failing; I think that champion/bard would do just fine.

I recognise that the game has some structural issues that create 'trap options' and others that encourage optimisation. But I also feel that the attitude I often see on these forums that the characters need to be optimised for combat to be a bit unfortunate too. Optimising is tempting, I know it personally too, but I feel when creating characters the ideal is to think what sort of person the character is and assign ability scores that reflect that, and not what's 'most effective.'

 

[niklinna]

sorry, i'm not quite up on the terminology, what does 'it's just an elf game' mean? asking this genuinely.

Its a way to refute any serious discussion of a fantasy topic, by claiming that its all made up anyway so none of it matters, or equating a discussion of aspects of the game as a real life discussion, thus making it ridiculous.

Well that does make more sense than my answer! And yet I could have sworn I saw somebody, recently, talking about all the varied elf subraces with their ASIs as a relevant thing....

edit: Added "elf".

 

[Bill Zebub]

. But I also feel that the attitude I often see on these forums that the characters need to be optimised for combat to be a bit unfortunate too.

I find that to be a bit of a straw man. I don’t see anybody saying they can’t be effective with a 14, but rather that they like being more effective with a 16.

Optimising is tempting, I know it personally too, but I feel when creating characters the ideal is to think what sort of person the character is and assign ability scores that reflect that, and not what's 'most effective.'

I tend to want to play characters who are extraordinary. If I play a warrior, I want him to be mighty. If I play a rogue, I want him to be incredibly quick and agile. Yeah, it’s shallow. If I were writing a novel with these characters it would be in the YT section, not classics & literature. I’m just not interested in playing joe average, or slightly above average.

It has nothing to do with beating the game, or comparing my character to others’ characters, or following a guide on the Internet.

 

[niklinna]

No it's cool, I realize that in most cases, it seems as if you have to be trying to make a bad character, but sometimes things that sound cool to people just aren't until they get some system mastery under their belt. Like Berserkers, arguably Assassins (can be cool, some players struggle with them), and my personal pet peeve, Wild Magic Sorcerers. I played one thinking it would be hilarious. Most of the time I felt like my class features (which were only useful some of the time) were locked behind a wall of me having to constantly ask the DM if I can have Tides of Chaos refreshed.

And even those examples are fine, but you could totally get a guy who decides to play a non-variant Human 15 Dex Fighter in Medium Armor who uses a shield and a rapier, goes Champion, and then decides at level 4 to multiclass into something random like Bard. Even in this example the character would probably be alright if the DM softballed the enemies, but it's rare that the entire group is built this way.

So our poor hypothetical Fighter could find himself in a party with a Variant Human Oath of Vengeance Paladin with 16 Strength and Heavy Armor Mastery who takes less damage, deals more damage, and has an endless array of cool-sounding special features and wonder what he's doing wrong.

Having played a 4e star pact warlock, I can attest to the fact that combat optimization can be a big deal. I had to optimise the heck out of my character, choosing powers and such that didn't fit my character concept or theme (which was actually narratively significant in that campaign), just to have a chance of not whiffing every single turn in most fights, and even then a lot of those powers were single-target. I felt the screw from both warlock class powers and itemization. It also got really old seeing some of the other PCs routinely wade into fights and whammy multiple foes with multiple abilities while I managed to provide some occasional soft control on just one.

Even if 5e is easy mode, some character builds do outshine others, and with players for whom that matters, it can be an issue. And it can matter in a variety of ways: A player might feel forced to optimize for combat to keep up in that area (which takes up a healthy chunk of play time at many tables, I'd wager), or other players might feel outshone by the player who does prioritize combat optimization or plays a class that's inherently more powerful than the rest of the team. Or the case you point out.

ObTopic, I'm perfectly fine with freely-assigned ASIs for everybody, particularly if you're doing any kind of stat assignment at all instead of pure random rolls. Regardless of stereotypes or distribution curves, adventurers are supposed to be exceptional individuals. And if you want the challenge of not being one of those exceptional individuals, you can easily not do that particular optimization...and tell people you didn't do it if that somehow becomes important to somebody.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

sorry, i'm not quite up on the terminology, what does 'it's just an elf game' mean? asking this genuinely.

It is a reminder that it is a fantasy game that we play and talk about for fun, too trivial to get so het up about that you're trying to upset other people.
Often used to try to calm down discussions that appear to have become more about winning an internet argument than enhancing each others' game.

A person can accidentally create a character that might not be as effective as they like, and definitely one that is less effective than some other characters. But I don't think that would still lead to the party failing; I think that champion/bard would do just fine.

I recognise that the game has some structural issues that create 'trap options' and others that encourage optimisation. But I also feel that the attitude I often see on these forums that the characters need to be optimised for combat to be a bit unfortunate too. Optimising is tempting, I know it personally too, but I feel when creating characters the ideal is to think what sort of person the character is and assign ability scores that reflect that, and not what's 'most effective.'

Indeed. There is a distinction, and middle ground, between " please don't actively sabotage your character's capability in everything" and "If your fighter isn't a CE/SS BM, or echo knight then you're letting everyone in your group down".
I've yet to meet a single group that would look down on a player who had only a 14 in their primary stat in order to boost their capability elsewhere for example.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, which means I can last four rounds of combat against player characters!

And do 2 extra points of damage!

 

[Maxperson]

No it's cool, I realize that in most cases, it seems as if you have to be trying to make a bad character, but sometimes things that sound cool to people just aren't until they get some system mastery under their belt.

You can't make a bad 5e character. Almost all of a PC's effectiveness is built into class and subclass, and even the "worst" of them is more than sufficient to be playable and enjoyable. As @Crimson Longinus said, the bar is set pretty low in 5e. Race isn't really relevant to that, except to maybe get a slight boost if you pick a race with a boost to your prime stat. The other racial abilities are just a bit of gravy.

Wild Magic Sorcerers. I played one thinking it would be hilarious. Most of the time I felt like my class features (which were only useful some of the time) were locked behind a wall of me having to constantly ask the DM if I can have Tides of Chaos refreshed.

I'd house rule that in a heartbeat. There is just too much already for me to worry about to want to track that. I'd probably just assign a flat percent chance, like 10% or 20% of a wild surge happening whenever you cast a spell other than a cantrip and it would refresh when a surge happens.

 

[ECMO3]

I tend to want to play characters who are extraordinary. If I play a warrior, I want him to be mighty. If I play a rogue, I want him to be incredibly quick and agile. Yeah, it’s shallow. If I were writing a novel with these characters it would be in the YT section, not classics & literature. I’m just not interested in playing joe average, or slightly above average.

It has nothing to do with beating the game, or comparing my character to others’ characters, or following a guide on the Internet.

I get that, one of the players at my party always plays a "mighty" warrior. Every one of his characters is nearly the same. It is fun for him.

Me - What I like is spells! ..... and unique builds that are still great at what I want them to be great at, while being good at other things. If I am building a Fighter, he is probably running a 10 or 12 constitution a 14/16 Strength/Dex or the other way around, he is an Eldritch Kinght and is using ASIs for feats like Fey Touched, Magic Initiate and Shadow Touched.

If I am building a melee tank build, it is probably a bladesinger.

If I am building a Rogue it is probably either an Arcane Trickster, or a strength melee build or a half-Elf scout skill monkey who gets Magic initiate and Fey Touched.