D&D 5E Is Tasha's More or Less The Universal Standard?

[Neonchameleon]

Please, do look it up.

When I google the first hit I get is Reddit asking how to balance rolled stats. The second is a thread during the playtest suggesting how to balance rolled stats. The third is Stackexchange asking how to balance rolled stats.

I see absolutely no evidence from looking it up that the game is balanced round rolled stats.

I see evidence that rolled stats are the first option listed in the PHB - but absolutely no evidence at all that that's how the game was balanced - merely that it was a way of appealing to a certain audience to whom balance was frequently a dirty word. I further think that if they thought that "+2 to one stat us worth the same amount as +2 to another" either that was pure sales or they were higher than kites.

In short I have looked it up. I have found nothing. If you have the link to hand I would be delighted to see it. But the idea that all else being equal +2 dex is worth the same as +2 Int in D&D is something that I believe came entirely from you - and my trying to look it up has only confirmed this. (And if they did say it then that reflects more on them as game designers than it does on reality).

 

[Parmandur]

When I google the first hit I get is Reddit asking how to balance rolled stats. The second is a thread during the playtest suggesting how to balance rolled stats. The third is Stackexchange asking how to balance rolled stats.

I see absolutely no evidence from looking it up that the game is balanced round rolled stats.

I see evidence that rolled stats are the first option listed in the PHB - but absolutely no evidence at all that that's how the game was balanced - merely that it was a way of appealing to a certain audience to whom balance was frequently a dirty word. I further think that if they thought that "+2 to one stat us worth the same amount as +2 to another" either that was pure sales or they were higher than kites.

In short I have looked it up. I have found nothing. If you have the link to hand I would be delighted to see it. But the idea that all else being equal +2 dex is worth the same as +2 Int in D&D is something that I believe came entirely from you - and my trying to look it up has only confirmed this. (And if they did say it then that reflects more on them as game designers than it does on reality).

Crawford has discussed it in his Sage Advice videos, or recently in his videos talking about the Tasha's rules (the topic of this thread) or even more recently with Mosnters of the Multiverse rollout. I remember him talking about as far back as Ravnica for sure, though.

Some Reddit threads where people are confused about the game's balance aren't evidence of much. I have heard the designers say, many times, thst starting with a 20 isn't a balance concern. So Tash6making it easier to do with the narrower variant rules isn't a concern.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In short @Parmandur you are claiming a source you can't be bothered to find for us to check whether your summary of it is even vaguely representative of what was said. And the claim you are making (that the stats are balanced) is absolute nonsense. As @Bill Zebub said

We really need the source, not one person’s interpretation of it.

I don't know whether you're not giving us this because it doesn't exist, whether you can't be bothered, or whether you know it would explode your case. Neither do I care.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I seem to have been ignored.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I seem to have been ignored.

He's added me to his ignore list too. I've returned the favour.

 

[DataDwarf]

We really need the source, not one person’s interpretation of it.

So I had to try and find this reference. This is the best I could find:
In it, he (Crawford) states that the bonuses are not for game balance purposes, but to reinforce an archetype.

I agree that it would be nice if people are going to reference something to support their argument they should cite their source.

 

[Parmandur]

So I had to try and find this reference. This is the best I could find:
In it, he (Crawford) states that the bonuses are not for game balance purposes, but to reinforce an archetype.

I agree that it would be nice if people are going to reference something to support their argument they should cite their source.

I wasn't arguing, I was stating. Thank you for providing the basic facts, though.

The Attributes are balsnce neutral. This isn't the first time they've said this, but if anyone is interested they can find it themselves.

 

[Irlo]

I wasn't arguing, I was stating. Thank you for providing the basic facts, though.

The Attributes are balsnce neutral. This isn't the first time they've said this, but if anyone is interested they can find it themselves.

"Balance neutral" =/= "not for balance purposes."

 

[Parmandur]

"Balance neutral" =/= "not for balance purposes."

Yes, "balance neutral" = "not for balance purposes." Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "balance neutral," but I meant that the choice is irrelevant to balance, or "not for balance purposes."

The premise earlier in the thread is that allowing a High Elf or Mountain Dwarf to change their initial ASI assignments impacts their balance status, but as has been established the Ability score choice is "not for balance purposes." Thst is, from a balance point of view, which Ability gets boosted is neutral or irrelevant. A Mountain Dwarf can get a +2 in any two Abilities because the choice of what Abilities get boosted is "not for balance purposes." Same as when a player takes an ASI, the number is the same.

 

[Irlo]

Yes, "balance neutral" = "not for balance purposes." Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "balance neutral," but I meant that the choice is irrelevant to balance, or "not for balance purposes."

The premise earlier in the thread is that allowing a High Elf or Mountain Dwarf to change their initial ASI assignments impacts their balance status, but as has been established the Ability score choice is "not for balance purposes." Thst is, from a balance point of view, which Ability gets boosted is neutral or irrelevant. A Mountain Dwarf can get a +2 in any two Abilities because the choice of what Abilities get boosted is "not for balance purposes." Same as when a player takes an ASI, the number is the same.

I think what it means is that whatever imbalance might arise from ASI assignments is not relevant to the game designer's intentions. Not that there isn't imbalance -- imbalance which might or might not be there -- but that it's not important. From a balance point of view, it might matter which ability gets boosted. But the priority of the designers when assigning racial ASIs was not balance.

I'm willing to agree to disagree and move on.