D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Maxperson]

Bard give pleasure whenever they c~BANNED~

I've never met Bards that gave pleasure when then band. Worst parts of a parade.

 

[Bill Zebub]

No it doesn't equate to a similar reduction in rounds to kill a target. It's 1-2 points of damage. The PC isn't in a white room, so it's not just your PC engaging in the fight. The whole party is fighting and you only reduce the fight by that much if you are solo fighting. In a group fight you probably won't even reduce it by one round.

Most fights are 3-5 rounds. You're extra few points of damage isn't going to be noticeable.

Well, do some math, then. Since my side has won this argument (in the sense that D&D is going this way) I don't really need to persuade you. But if you spend some time understanding the math you might feel better about the change.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, do some math, then. Since my side has won this argument (in the sense that D&D is going this way) I don't really need to persuade you.

You haven't won, since your side really only has subjective opinion that the trivial few points of damage is worth giving up more fun with feats.

But if you spend some time understanding the math you might feel better about the change.

I understand the math. It amounts to a trivial amount of damage that really doesn't make enough or even noticeable difference in a real game outside of a white room to warrant skipping a feat or other fun things.

Edit: Out of every 20 swings, you hit one additional time. In a 4 round combat, even with 2 attacks you will need 2.5 combats to get one extra hit for 7-8 points of damage. You aren't shortening combat length unless you get exceedingly lucky. You aren't doing anything noticeable.

 

[TwoSix]

Which is a good argument for simply getting rid of ASIs and changing the ability score generation method to produce a similar result.

I mean, you could simply start with all 8s, and have 6 +2/+1 pairs to raise your stats, and that would be a perfectly cromulent method of generating stats.

Ultimately, stats are a metagame construct, and should be handled at the metagame level. Turning the stats into a coherent narrative should be done at the level of the individual character, not the game system.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You haven't won, since your side really only has subjective opinion that the trivial few points of damage is worth it.

"Won" in the sense that WotC designers agree.

I understand the math. It amounts to a trivial amount of damage that really doesn't make enough or even noticeable difference in a real game outside of a white room to warrant skipping a feat or other fun thing.

Well, when I DM I see monsters being left with 1-2 very, very often. But I recognize that it's statistically possible that you are an extreme outlier and this rarely, or even never, happens to you. So maybe that clouds your perception.

*And, really, 1-2 is the wrong number. That's only the case if there has been a single round of combat, and the fighter is levels 1-4. With each attack, with each round, the threshold increases.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"Won" in the sense that WotC designers agree.

I... don't think this is as big a win as you think.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, when I DM I see monsters being left with 1-2 very, very often. But I recognize that it's statistically possible that you are an extreme outlier and this rarely, or even never, happens to you. So maybe that clouds your perception.

*And, really, 1-2 is the wrong number. That's only the case if there has been a single round of combat, and the fighter is levels 1-4. With each attack, with each round, the threshold increases.

Out of every 20 swings, you hit one additional time. In a 4(average of 3-5) round combat, even with 2 attacks you will need 2.5 combats to get one extra hit for 7-8 points of damage. You aren't shortening combat length unless you get lucky. You aren't doing anything noticeable.

 

[Maxperson]

I... don't think this is as big a win as you think.

Correct. I haven't even seen anything that says that the designers agree at all. What we've seen is a change that could just as easily have been made to placate a large group of people that doesn't understand just how small of a difference that +1 really makes in normal game play, and believes that +1 is "necessary."

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, you could simply start with all 8s, and have 6 +2/+1 pairs to raise your stats, and that would be a perfectly cromulent method of generating stats.

Ultimately, stats are a metagame construct, and should be handled at the metagame level. Turning the stats into a coherent narrative should be done at the level of the individual character, not the game system.

I totally agree.

And, FWIW, I'd be perfectly happy with a game in which you get 5 10's and 1 12. As I keep saying, it's not that I need a 16 specifically, it's that the incentive to make a character choice that leaves me with a +2 in my primary attribute is not as compelling as the choice that gives me a +3.

If, for example, there was a choice between the racial ASI and a feat, I'd happily play the unusual race/class but take a feat instead of the ASI.

But right now (or, pre-Tasha's) it was a choice between:
A) +2 in your primary attribute and (a bunch of racial abilities)
B) +2 in some other, potentially dump, attribute and (a bunch of racial abilities)

Given that the bunch of racial abilities are roughly equivalent...which they are, to me...I just never found it compelling to take choice B.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Out of every 20 swings, you hit one additional time. In a 4(average of 3-5) round combat, even with 2 attacks you will need 2.5 combats to get one extra hit for 7-8 points of damage. You aren't shortening combat length unless you get lucky. You aren't doing anything noticeable.

Well, good luck with that.