D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Neonchameleon]

When will people just come together to commiserate about all of them being inferior to me?

When we actually find someone inferior to you?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That +2 to your prime stat is honestly not all that important to maintaining a level playing field.

And this absolutely is about optimization. You can call a tomato a potato, but that doesn't mean it won't still make a better pizza sauce than a French fry.

Optimization is, at its most basic, asking the question, "How do I get more or higher bonuses here?" That's exactly what this is- the player is figuring out how to shift an extra +1 from one area of the character sheet to another.

If the difference in effectiveness isn't a big deal, then it also isn't a big deal to change it. And if a sufficient amount of people want it to change (which WotC decided that there were) . . . then it's worth changing, no matter what the motivation behind that is.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If the difference in effectiveness isn't a big deal, then it also isn't a big deal to change it. And if a lot of people want it to change . . . then it's worth changing, no matter what the motivation behind that is.

I don't think this has the relevant nuance. At many levels a small stone in the shoe isn't a big deal - but it is really really irritating. And I do think that at an absolute level a +1 to a stat is not a big deal - but not being able to meet your expected benchmarks is not a big deal in the way that a stone in your shoe is not a big deal; every time you take a step or roll something off your primary attribute it will probably annoy you. And this will cause a lot of people not to use it.

As I mentioned 4e solved the core problem by ensuring that there was a level of min-maxing higher than the benchmark so everyone could reach the benchmark. And Pathfinder 2e solved the problem by giving a freely assigned ASI.

I do wonder whether the objections would have been louder if Tasha's had instead introduced a rule like "The Adventurer's +1" that gave a +1 in any ability score that you did not already have a racial bonus in. It would have been direct power creep because it's a free +1 - but wouldn't have had anyone object about the fluff change and would have solved 90% of the same problems.

 

[Blue]

That +2 to your prime stat is honestly not all that important to maintaining a level playing field.

Citation needed. If you are talking math, it's a noticable difference. If you are talking one character having the luxury to pick up feats while others are picking up ASIs to carry their weight then that's also a difference.

Basically, I'm saying lower is lower, and proof of that is that lower IS lower. If you would like to provide support for your statement "it's not enough lower to be important", please do. If you can't provide support, then stop making the claim,

And this absolutely is about optimization. You can call a tomato a potato, but that doesn't mean it won't still make a better pizza sauce than a French fry.

Saying it's about optimization is the same as saying it's about math. Technically true, but being used in such a wide way that it's meaningless.

All it's doing is keeping players on par with other players. If you call that optimization, fine, but then also call it balance or avoiding nerfing, because those are at least as true.

Optimization is, at its most basic, asking the question, "How do I get more or higher bonuses here?" That's exactly what this is- the player is figuring out how to shift an extra +1 from one area of the character sheet to another.

Yes. It is shifting +1 to maintain balance in main ability score between concepts. You can call that optimization, but please don't try to deny it's to bring something into balance.

Anyway, you already said that +2 isn't important - if it's important to me and not important to you, why are you denying it?

 

[Blue]

To be clear, I'm fine with that if that's the game someone else wants to run. Have your fun your way! But I find floating ASIs to be extremely dissatisfying. I would probably feel differently if they hadn't been used to depict how far a race varies from the human baseline for, well, the entire time I've been playing D&D (since 1981).

THIS is completely valid. "I find it extremely dissatisfying". I can respect that.

The rest seemed like sophistry to support that you just don't like it. It's okay not to like it, not to use it. I support you making that choice for your game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Citation needed. If you are talking math, it's a noticable difference. If you are talking one character having the luxury to pick up feats while others are picking up ASIs to carry their weight then that's also a difference.

A lot of people say, "It just means you hit 5% more often!"

The thing is...it's doesn't mean that. The numbers vary by AC, but if you have a 50% chance to hit, 5% more means you hit 10% more often. And then you add the +1 to your damage, and then you multiply the hit rate increase by the damage increase.

As has been shown many times, for a 1st level fighter, a 16 Str results in 20-30% more damage than a 15 Str. The increase is greater at higher ACs, which are often the hardest and most important fights.

 

[Guest 7034872]

I'm too new to DMing to consider myself competent to judge Tasha's brokenness, but what I can say with confidence is it floored me when I sat down and properly studied it recently. There are just so many things in there that seem so powerful. Hereafter, when gaming as a player I'll treat Tasha's as my immediate go-to with equal priority to the PHB.

 

[overgeeked]

First, let's be clear.

"5-10% worse", in this case, assuming you are talking strictly about a +2 bonus to Wis means exactly and pretty much only a -1 to your spell DCs and attacks, and a -1 to your healing. There are probably a few other effects here and there, but it's absolutely not 5% to 10% lower damage on your attack spells, or a 5-10% chance of failing to remove conditions with lesser restoration, or anything else. It's a marginal difference.

And honestly, if that +1 means more to you than your concept, I don't think your concept was for a halfling druid. It sounds to me like it was for a druid with a 20 Wis (or whatever starting score is 2 above the halfling's).

So the only way to not optimize is to intentionally make bad choices? That's uh...certainly...a spicy hot take.

According your your way of thinking, if I want to play a human fighter the only way to not be an optimizer is to, let me guess, play a halfling bard. Anything else would be optimizing, right?

Sorry, but you're never going to convince me that wanting good stats in your class's main stats is in any way on par with monstrosities like the coffee-lock. It just isn't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Anyway, you already said that +2 isn't important - if it's important to me and not important to you, why are you denying it?

This. If @the Jester thinks that the +2 or even +1 isn't important then what complaint does he have. Clearly it isn't important to him and therefore he's fine with it being movable.

Meanwhile a 20-30% shift in DPR (thanks @Bill Zebub ) and hence combat effectiveness for a fighter is important to me. Yes, if I'm playing someone who calls themselves a professional fighter then being good at fighting is part of that character concept. And if I'm 25% behind the benchmark then for all I can call myself a fighter I'm not very good at it.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think this has the relevant nuance. At many levels a small stone in the shoe isn't a big deal - but it is really really irritating. And I do think that at an absolute level a +1 to a stat is not a big deal - but not being able to meet your expected benchmarks is not a big deal in the way that a stone in your shoe is not a big deal; every time you take a step or roll something off your primary attribute it will probably annoy you. And this will cause a lot of people not to use it.

Exactly.

The problem wasn't the +1 or +2.
It was the 16 primary score baseline that you couldn't reach without lucky rolls or the +1 or+2.

4e had a 16 baseline but it gave you the 16 straight up.
5e went "I'm not saying you must have a 16+ in your prime score but you really really really really should have a 16+ in your prime score. Here's a 15."