D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Bill Zebub]

This is a matter of play style. I don't accept that PCs are so unique and special that they share nothing in common with the species that birthed them other than superficial appearance. Setting first is absolutely a thing.

Yes because the only thing that differentiates halfings from elves is their Dexterity bonus.

Oh, wait, that didn’t come out right.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I actually really like many of the subclasses in Tasha’s. So many of them have been great inspiration for characters.

• Beast and Wild Soul Barbarian
• Creation Bard
• Stars and Wildfire Druid
• Psi Knight Fighter
• Astral Self and Mercy Monk
• Swarmkeeper Ranger
• Phantom Rogue
• Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Sorcerer
• Fathomless Warlock

Some of these are my favorite subclasses of a given class, like Phantom Rogue and Beast Barbarian.

 

[Minigiant]

What Tasha's showed is the many fans want a simple system and a complex system at the same time for ability scores. However with the promise of numerous variant dead at playtest, this was impossible. So only option for WOTC was to shift races away from ability scores and to racial traits.

 

[CleverNickName]

What Tasha's showed is the many fans want a simple system and a complex system at the same time for ability scores. However with the promise of numerous variant dead at playtest, this was impossible. So only option for WOTC was to shift races away from ability scores and to racial traits.

This is a good point. I mean, what else could WotC have done?

 

[Minigiant]

This is a good point. I mean, what else could WotC have done?

Nothing.

They opted to have no variant rules but feats and multiclassing
They stopped negative ability modifiers.
They wanted 5e to be ability score heavy
They wanted bounded accuracy
They wanted the game to have no magic bonuses required
They wanted the game simple enough to get for all the potential newcomers
They wanted to not kill the excitement of all their newcomers.

They had no choice if they wanted backward compatibility.

Really if they went the 4e method and tied a base accuracy bonus to the weapon or implement, it could have solved a lotta mess as races without a +2 in their class prime could just take the more accurate weapons. But WOTC shunned complexity in weapons and symbols and soft convinced every needed a 16+ in prime ability score because the designers all loved playing stereotypical PCs.

Like I said
5e: Suffering from Success
DJ Khaled
We the Best RPG

 

[Micah Sweet]

If it is a matter of philosophy and worldbulding, and you admit that there are valid philosophies and worldbuilding other than your own personal favorites...

... then you cannot say flat out what it better or worse, other than for yourself. And it would be great for that to be included as you continue to beat that drum.

Allow me to throw in the obligatory "in my opinion" then

Beat...beat.. beat

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t know. Sometimes annoying the minority…depending upon which group we are talking about…is frosting on the cake.

I don't hold with shaudenfraude.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is one of the biggest mischaracterizations of a book/someone's position on this site that I've seen in a while. Literally, no one/no part of TCoE is advocating for "only superficial appearance differences between races". If you see the whole identity of the race tied to whether or not they have a +2 to Strength . . . you're just as bad as the optimizers that the Anti-Floating ASI crowd complains so much about.

I know you hate the race changes in Monsters in the Multiverse, but if your image of them is "the only difference between races now is nonmechanical physical appearances," then you've got your head on backward. Seriously, just go look at any single updated race from Monsters of the Multiverse or Fizban's, and you will find huge mechanical differences between them that aren't just "superficial appearance differences." There is literally nothing about the new style of design for the game that would suggest that PCs only have superficial similarities with the average member of their race. Duergar still have psionic Invisibility and Enlarging abilities, just like the average member of their race. Elves learn proficiencies from trances that show them visions of past lives. Dragonborn have damage resistances, breath weapons, and specific features tied to the type of Dragon that they're the most closely related to. I could go on and on.

No one has argued that the only similarity between a PC version of the race and a monster version of the race should only be physical appearance. No book has changed the race rules to promote that theoretical playstyle. The fact that you seem to believe that's what some people want and are using it as a basis to support your own opinion is concerning.

I overstated my point here. I thought a larger point was being made here, that PCs are so darn special and one in a million that they need to be treated fundamentally differently than their own species. Of course ASIs are not the only potential point of commonality, and I apologize for misrepresenting my position and that of the poster to whom I replied.

 

[MGibster]

Again, for 4d6 drop the lowest rolled PCs, 1 in 11 with a +2 in an ability could start with a 20. But there is no chance any with a +1 could start with a 20. Ever. That's a pretty step drop to say h, this is correct.

How dare you use math against me! My one weakness.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't hold with shaudenfraude.

Even when the Mockva sank?