D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Bill Zebub]

I understand that there are people like you out there who feel that way, and I think the change was made for you guys.

Like I said, we won.

 

[SkidAce]

3. The discussion is not about species, that's listed in the Monster Manual. It's about PCs, who already are outliers. It's about "is it possible that there is a single person in a race who is at a higher potential in some category than the average for their species".

The PCs are outliers to what? Where is the "standard" dwarf for them to be compared to?

I mainly agree with you, but I feel the "standard" has to be created by the campaign (my elves are taller by the way) and there is no intuitive way for people to establish a standard, so they use the PC stats.

Hence the arguments.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't like ASI's, personally. I'd rather have the game be feats only than have any kind of ASI be an option.

I hate ASIs, but I also feel compelled to take them because making mechanically effective characters is a big part of the fun for me. There's a limit: I take the low-hanging fruit, but I'm not a 100% optimizer. I'll often take feats like Mage Slayer, or a subclass like Shadow Monk, because it's just so much fun. But I really wish I could just take the fun feats without facing that trade-off.

It's a big part of the reason I proposed that Fighter subclass that just got a bunch of non-ASI (not even half ASI) feats: I would love the excuse to take a bunch of the fun ones.

 

[TwoSix]

I hate ASIs, but I also feel compelled to take them because making mechanically effective characters is a big part of the fun for me. There's a limit: I take the low-hanging fruit, but I'm not a 100% optimizer. I'll often take feats like Mage Slayer, or a subclass like Shadow Monk, because it's just so much fun. But I really wish I could just take the fun feats without facing that trade-off.

It's a big part of the reason I proposed that Fighter subclass that just got a bunch of non-ASI (not even half ASI) feats: I would love the excuse to take a bunch of the fun ones.

I agree with you. One thing I've been doing in my own games recently is starting with much higher arrays (1st stat anywhere between 17-19, secondary stat around 15-16) so that characters can start with 20s in their main stat, and thus get right to taking fun feats over ASIs.

 

[SkidAce]

... 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....

I think its more...new players lean towards stereotypical characters from stories and games initially and will eventually broaden their horizons.

 

[Umbran]

Since my side has won this argument ...

You haven't won...

Mod Note:

Right now, you two are on track for mutually assured destruction. Please stop trying to win. Thanks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not look at ASIs as related to natural talent and ability or pre-adventure training and upbringing?

Because rather than change what ASIs were associated with, it was decided to remove all association at all. They decided to change the rules for everybody, and that means everybody has to deal with it.

 

[Guest 7034872]

From reading this thread, I've wondered why the advantage of better odds of hitting and better damage when hitting don't subjectively appeal to me as much as some of the feats do, and I think I've figured it out: as a player, I tend to prefer tactics that forestall a fight over things that serve well in one. So when I play a sorcerer, for instance, Subtle Spell is a first pick. I like to play the sort of caster who gathers information about the environment and possible foes and prevents information-gathering conducted against our party. I also habitually favor spells that break down enemy defenses or reduce their offensive capabilities, and for this sort of play, some feats and spells in Tasha's are just wonderful.

But it is broken? I grew up in the early AD&D era, and the notion of OP back then was rather different from today's. Maybe I'm too stuck in the past, but I still think of "broken" as meaning a lot more than "This character class is more powerful than these others." To my aging mind, it's more like, "This character class consistently turns every adventure into a one-person ego trip." Tentatively, I don't get that sense from Tasha's (but I also have never tried playing a Twilight Cleric, so who knows?).

 

[Minigiant]

"They didn't do what I would prefer, therefore they are uninspired," is not a particularly compelling argument.

I never expected them to do what I wanted.

My point is that a noticeable amount of Tasha's felt like to me as obligation to make material by people who never were going to use it. At least for the subclasses and the race variant. Between the psionic subclasses, the reprints, and the high magic aspects of the rest, it just feels sorta forced.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

From reading this thread, I've wondered why the advantage of better odds of hitting and better damage when hitting don't subjectively appeal to me as much as some of the feats do, and I think I've figured it out: as a player, I tend to prefer tactics that forestall a fight over things that serve well in one.

I always prefer a breath of options... so a feat that gives me extra abilities ALWAYS seems more powerful then an ASI... but that also leads me to multi classing alot.