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

[doctorbadwolf]

In my group we have one player who always has to "beat" the system, or "win" DND. Always optimized, moans when he doesn't get the magic item, builds combos to avoid ever taking damage, tries to out damage everyone, complains when his HP rolls are low, etc. Its an attitude that exists, but in our case comes from a long history (over 40 years) of playing. He's always been that way. Everything is a competition.

I'm playing a fighter in a Basic campaign right now, and my highest stat is a 12 (as a Fighter, 3d6 six times, assign). I'm solidly keeping pace with the Dwarves and Elf (all with stats providing bonuses). I put my second highest stat in Cha to get better morale and follower buffs, as I intend to hire my way through the campaign. I'm having a blast.

We used all of Tasha's and Xanathar's in our two campaigns over the last three years. Tasha's options definitely pushed some combos and multi classes into absurd territory. In our second campaign those combos caused the game to come to an abrupt end (I was DMing). IF we ever go back to 5e (which is a big IF in our group), then I expect there will be some more curating of what goes into the campaign. But who knows what WOTC will drop into 5.5, and the things they label "optional" might end up becoming default as well.

I’d love to know what official content made the game end. I’ve played with optimizers, and am fairly inclined that way myself, and I genuinely cannot imagine anything RAW that would particularly worry me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We used all of Tasha's and Xanathar's in our two campaigns over the last three years. Tasha's options definitely pushed some combos and multi classes into absurd territory. In our second campaign those combos caused the game to come to an abrupt end (I was DMing). IF we ever go back to 5e (which is a big IF in our group), then I expect there will be some more curating of what goes into the campaign. But who knows what WOTC will drop into 5.5, and the things they label "optional" might end up becoming default as well.

I'm curious - could you expand on what those combinations were please and why one broke the game?

 

[James Gasik]

In my group we have one player who always has to "beat" the system, or "win" DND. Always optimized, moans when he doesn't get the magic item, builds combos to avoid ever taking damage, tries to out damage everyone, complains when his HP rolls are low, etc. Its an attitude that exists, but in our case comes from a long history (over 40 years) of playing. He's always been that way. Everything is a competition.

I'm playing a fighter in a Basic campaign right now, and my highest stat is a 12 (as a Fighter, 3d6 six times, assign). I'm solidly keeping pace with the Dwarves and Elf (all with stats providing bonuses). I put my second highest stat in Cha to get better morale and follower buffs, as I intend to hire my way through the campaign. I'm having a blast.

We used all of Tasha's and Xanathar's in our two campaigns over the last three years. Tasha's options definitely pushed some combos and multi classes into absurd territory. In our second campaign those combos caused the game to come to an abrupt end (I was DMing). IF we ever go back to 5e (which is a big IF in our group), then I expect there will be some more curating of what goes into the campaign. But who knows what WOTC will drop into 5.5, and the things they label "optional" might end up becoming default as well.

To be fair, in Basic and AD&D, most characters don't have bonuses, and you need really high numbers to modify a roll by more than 5%. Those versions of the game made big numbers less important overall (at least until we get to the lightning bonus round of exceptional Strength).

 

[Parmandur]

Fine. I was only counting incoming saves and didn't separate out the outgoing saves. I'll give wizards that one(though I personally don't believe it) and now it's 5 to 2 for quality in favor of dex. Int is still way behind.

Outgoing Inyellihence saves by Wizards are worth a lot. Quality, not quantity.

 

[Cruentus]

I'm curious - could you expand on what those combinations were please and why one broke the game?

I don't want to derail the thread, but for you and @doctorbadwolf and any others:

Its not so much that the game "broke", per se (probably a bit overdramatic on my part). It was more a combination of multiple small things:
1) Pacing: I wasn't running a 6-8 encounter day, the party was able to "nova" just about every BBEG, and most enemies, unless super deadly (which then I had to walk back from TPKs) were cakewalks.
2) Characters:
Thief/Warlock multi (I understand multi is usually suboptimal), but the combination of thief subclass (Swashbuckler) movement, sneak attack, plus Warlock Chain Pact, Imp (fly, invisibility, ability to see in darkness), Genie Patron (ring to hop into to escape combat and invisible flying homunculus flies away with it) alongside devilsight and darkness, plus Eldritch Blast spam.
Evoker, which was pretty basic, but the ability to throw AOEs into any situation and avoid other players while hanging out in the back, plus spammed cantrips for damage was powerful.
Arcane Archer (not super helpful, but the occasional grasping arrow and tracking arrow were situationally good),
Cleric (standard - spiritual hammer, sacred flame, spirit guardians, healing word) and
Cleric/sorcerer (Twilight Cleric, plus sorcerer which wasn't that noticeable, but twilight was great).

It was a huge range of abilities, even without any kind of front line fighter, that could spam cantrips and not use resources against low level threats, and could nuke 12+ level NPC casters and other big monsters in one to two rounds. And that was with utilizing spellcasters with hold person, and attempts at counterspell, yugoloths when the campaign area dictated it, mixed groups of smaller and tougher., etc.

It was a "sandbox" where the party was following various leads/going on adventures, so they could be in areas that were weaker than themselves, or tougher, but we ended up toward the end not bothering to fight the lesser enemies when they appeared because "don't waste good spells on these guys, just use cantrips" was the refrain. And I was having to reach beyond CR12+, way beyond, to threaten them, which resulted in TPKs (razor line for us in that department).

And in trying to utilize environment to change things up worked to an extent, but spammable light (not to mention Darkvision, Twilight ability to share 300' darkvision, devil sight, etc.) all removed environmental impacts (and I am aware of the disadvantage to Perception checks around Darkvision, etc.), easy ability to create food, Leomund's Hut, etc. all made it feel like I was wrestling against the system, rather than playing the game and it was more and more difficult to keep things interesting.

Happy to discuss via messages so as to not clog up the thread.

 

[Maxperson]

Outgoing Inyellihence saves by Wizards are worth a lot. Quality, not quantity.

You are ignoring all the other quality I talked about and mislabeling it only quantity. The truth is, it's a dex has a superior quantity of quality. Nothing I mentioned in that list was not quality over int, except the 1 category int edged out dex in, and your outgoing saves. Dex has superior quality.

 

[Parmandur]

You are ignoring all the other quality I talked about and mislabeling it only quantity. The truth is, it's a dex has a superior quantity of quality. Nothing I mentioned in that list was not quality over int, except the 1 category int edged out dex in, and your outgoing saves. Dex has superior quality.

You enumerated a quantity of factors, yes, but a quantity of small factors isn't necessarily "better" than a few major factors. Quantitative and qualitative are not the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

You enumerated a quantity of factors, yes

I enumerated many great qualities of dex where int failed to provide anything close to that quality. Just because there were a lot of them doesn't make it quantity over quality. It just means dex has that much more quality than int.

but a quantity of small factors isn't necessarily "better" than a few major factors.

The small factors were provided by int, not dex in my comparison. I provided no small factors for dex.

 

[Irlo]

I enumerated many great qualities of dex where int failed to provide anything close to that quality. Just because there were a lot of them doesn't make it quantity over quality. It just means dex has that much more quality than int.

The small factors were provided by int, not dex in my comparison. I provided no small factors for dex.

It depends, though, doesn’t it?

DEX AC bonus is a small factor if you have medium armor proficiency (and a non-factor in heavy armor). Ranged and finesse attack and damage modifier are large factors … IF you use ranged and finesse weapons. If you’re slinging spells, it doesn’t matter at all. Initiative modifiers are overrated, IMO.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It depends, though, doesn’t it?

DEX AC bonus is a small factor if you have medium armor proficiency (and a non-factor in heavy armor). Ranged and finesse attack and damage modifier are large factors … IF you use ranged and finesse weapons. If you’re slinging spells, it doesn’t matter at all. Initiative modifiers are overrated, IMO.

if you are not setting DCs or attacking with INT, it is pretty much a dump stat. If you aren't attacking or setting DCs with Dex you still have the most common save, the AC (unless you are in heavy armor) and initiative.