D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Neonchameleon]

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.

To me that's the sign of a successful book. Given that there are a grand total of three major player sources (PHB, Tasha's, Xanathar's) and we're almost eight years after the launch of the PHB then it's a sign of how weak Xanathar's was that it isn't a go-to book unlike the PHB and Tasha's. And yet I don't think that Tasha's raised the power curve much at all because it didn't do much to buff the top of the power curve.

Twilight Cleric is still an anti-social mess however.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yeah, this.

There are lots of attempts (not just on this topic) to legitimize aesthetic preferences, or delegitimize others, with high-falutin' language. ("Dissociated Mechanics" I'm lookin' at you.). But they don't need to be legitimized: it's ok to have preferences.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And yet I don't think that Tasha's raised the power curve much at all because it didn't do much to buff the top of the power curve.

That's a great way of looking at it.

If you imagine a graph showing the power distribution of all possible race/class combinations, Tasha's didn't raise the bar very much, but it brought lots of combinations closer to the bar.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Frankly, just get RID of racial/floating ASIs.

--- Begin Rant ---

You want a high STR? Put your best score (whatever that might be) in STR!
Want a high WIS? Put it in WIS!
And so on...

You don't want the disparity of scores between PCs by rolling? Either don't roll (do a point-buy or standard array) or have everyone roll but choose just one set of scores to use and everyone uses that set.

If you want higher scores and miss the +3 points the ASIs give you, roll with a higher curve (use 5d6, best 3) or use a higher standard array (16,15,14,13,12,10) or use a higher point-buy (32 pts or more even).

I see no point in having them other than to represent actual physiological differences between races (which is more accurately represented by the maximums), but in today's culture that seems to be seen as such a negative so WotC won't go there.

Culture, IME, might be a better argument for a bump to the score instead of the maximum.

Background is pretty low in granting adjustments to ability scores.

And class is dead last, because, again, you are probably already putting your best scores where they will benefit your class the most.

--- End Rant ---

Anyway, as always do what is most fun for your group, but at this point I'd rather WotC just get rid of them at let the "standard" methods be the baseline without another +3 thrown in.

 

[Willie the Duck]

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).

Probably the same reason I have no problem with it, given that differing attributes was not one differentiated races from humans in '74, and '77-'95 (or whenever RC/BECMI was discontinued).

 

[the Jester]

Probably the same reason I have no problem with it, given that differing attributes was not one differentiated races from humans in '74, and '77-'95 (or whenever RC/BECMI was discontinued).

I haven't played super early editions in a really long time. Am I correct that there weren't ASIs at all in those editions?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Frankly, just get RID of racial/floating ASIs.

--- Begin Rant ---

You want a high STR? Put your best score (whatever that might be) in STR!
Want a high WIS? Put it in WIS!
And so on...

You don't want the disparity of scores between PCs by rolling? Either don't roll (do a point-buy or standard array) or have everyone roll but choose just one set of scores to use and everyone uses that set.

If you want higher scores and miss the +3 points the ASIs give you, roll with a higher curve (use 5d6, best 3) or use a higher standard array (16,15,14,13,12,10) or use a higher point-buy (32 pts or more even).

I see no point in having them other than to represent actual physiological differences between races (which is more accurately represented by the maximums), but in today's culture that seems to be seen as such a negative so WotC won't go there.

Culture, IME, might be a better argument for a bump to the score instead of the maximum.

Background is pretty low in granting adjustments to ability scores.

And class is dead last, because, again, you are probably already putting your best scores where they will benefit your class the most.

--- End Rant ---

Anyway, as always do what is most fun for your group, but at this point I'd rather WotC just get rid of them at let the "standard" methods be the baseline without another +3 thrown in.

If I were in charge, I’d also get rid of ASIs while leveling.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Furthermore, not all ability scores are weighed the same in how important they are in D&D 5e. Having a higher Dexterity is very important for most Rogues, because it not only determines how well they are at attacking/damaging their enemies, but it also determines most of their important proficiencies (Stealth, Sleight of Hands, Acrobatics, Thieves' Tools), their Armor Class, their Dexterity saving throws, and their Initiative score (which is really, really important for Assassin Rogues). However, most other ability scores for most other classes are not at all as important as Dexterity is for basically all Rogues.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When we actually find someone inferior to you?

Look, we don't need you coming in here with your 'facts' and your 'verifiable observations'. This is a D&D board; you at least compare me to a video game, sir!

 

[the Jester]

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.

That's not exactly what I said, or if it is, I spoke poorly. To be clear, I don't think having your prime stat be 2 higher is important. I don't think everyone needs to start with an 18 or even a 16 in their prime stat; I have pcs that I play that started with 14 and 15 in their prime stats.

That +2 is important in defining one of the things that makes a race different from humans. Right now, one of 5e's trends is to make all the races generic in a bunch of ways (same lifespan, size choice, stat bumps, etc). As a DM, I am just the opposite. I lean into the alienness of nonhumans as best I can. I have heard all the arguments about other races just being humans in silly hats or with forehead bumps, but I think that's a lazy attitude- I think it's worth the effort to try to make each race actually not human. ASIs have always been a mechanism for that in my game.

So, important; but not important in the way it is important to a player whose big concern is getting that +2 to the right stat.

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.

This is interesting, but in actual play, I have never found having a lower prime stat to be crippling, either as a player or as a DM. I've always managed to feel effective and contribute to the party, and I've always seen pcs in my game do the same.

I mean, if the difference is so crippling, why is it that non-optimal pcs have done fine over the years 5e has been out? And they have- I have a huge stable of pcs in my campaign, and many of them are weird combo meal types.

I'll stand by my position that, even if you use fixed ASIs, you have plenty of opportunity to get a high score in your main stat unless you use a pretty unusual stat generation method. You can already optimize enough.