Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bill Zebub" data-source="post: 8381859" data-attributes="member: 7031982">That one doesn't seem to include the options from Tasha's.  Am I looking in the wrong place?  What I'm looking for is whether post-Tasha's there are races that are rated higher than the best option pre-Tasha's.For example, I looked at Monk and they gave Wood Elf the highest rating (sky blue color).  With Tasha's, are there just a lot more races that are sky blue...which I think would be 100% fine...or do they downgrade Wood Elf because the only advantage it ever had was the ability scores?  Because if the result is primarily that more races get top ratings, and therefore the sort of people who rely on these guides show more diversity, I think that's a good thing.Really, though, what I'm hoping to see someday is data from D&DBeyond comparing pre- and post-Tasha's preferences.In any event, it has become apparent that each of us is product of our experiences, which affects our viewpoint.  I've seen the sort of toxic powergamer some people described, but only when I was for a while going to a big weekly Adventurer's League meeting at  FLGS.  But I don't go to that anymore, so it's not really a problem I have to deal with.  My stance on all issues of player toxicity is that changing the rules doesn't change behavior and the only real solution is to not play with those people.  But I can understand that if somebody has a really bad experience with a certain type of player it can produce a deeply-rooted emotional reaction to the conditions.  (My wife got terrible food poisoning from seafood as a child, and still can't stand the smell of seafood.)In my own group there's one player who always plays a powergamer build that I suspect he's researched, and the difference is clear during combat.  However, he never tells other people how they should play, and when the DM overrules one of his shenanigans he immediately and graciously accepts it, with a slight smile that seems to acknowledge that he is pushing the boundaries.  And then there are a couple people like me, who try to build mechanically effective characters, but will also make some sub-optimal choices (e.g. using daggers instead of short swords, or making in-character but tactically unwise decisions during play) when it seems like the fun thing to do.  Thus, lacking any sort of emotional scars from toxic players, and having experienced "powergaming" as a largely benign yin to roleplaying's yang, it's hard for me to see floating ASIs as anything dangerous.But this discussion has helped me better understand a range of viewpoints, and for those who were willing to repeat and clarify and discuss without getting angry and accusatory, this has been educational.  Thanks.</blockquote>

Verification