D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Horwath]

3e's racial traits were not weak. I mean, that's why they brought in Level Adjustment. I also disagree with 5e. I mean, I agree with you to an extent. They are weaker than 3e(never played 4e), but they are still often more interesting and fun to me than killing a single bugbear slightly faster ever 2.5 to 5 fights.

I give a free feat of the player's choice at 1st level. Not to make up for anything, but because feats are fun.

3.5e racial were OK,

but,
they had their own way to make floating racial bonuses penalties,

we.must.make.more.elf.sub.races...

need barbarian? wood elf
need wizard? gray elf, gold elf
need elf without Con penalty? wild elf, sea elf, snow elf
need wisdom? dunno, probably there is an elf for that...
need charisma? star elf
need darkvision? just say you are half drow/half what ever elf you need for your ASI
need flying? avariel elf
need tiefling elf? fey'ri

 

[Maxperson]

I said Nonabilty Score racial traits.

The Nonabilty Score traits were weak.
The Ability scores were powerful. That's why you got LAs.

You got many of them from the nonability traits as well. There was a formula in the DMG and much of the level adjustment came from those.

 

[Maxperson]

3.5e racial were OK,

but,
they had their own way to make floating racial bonuses penalties,

we.must.make.more.elf.sub.races...

need barbarian? wood elf
need wizard? gray elf, gold elf
need elf without Con penalty? wild elf, sea elf, snow elf
need wisdom? dunno, probably there is an elf for that...
need charisma? star elf
need darkvision? just say you are half drow/half what ever elf you need for your ASI
need flying? avariel elf
need tiefling elf? fey'ri

Yeah. That and 3e was more stat dependent. With non-bounded armor classes, save DCs and such, having the proper stat(s) for your class was much more important than it is in 5e.

You also didn't need fey'ri to be a tiefling. You could just be.......................a tielfling.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Some people think that the book has too much powercreep. Some people think that (outside of a few outliers) the book only gave "powercreep" to the classes/subclasses that needed it (Monks, Rangers, Sorcerers).

I think that power creep on classes that were weaker before is a legitimate concern. In many cases, the class archetypes in the PHB are those that are the most commonly associated with those classes, so having to choose between playing the archetype that you want, or an archetype that is more powerful but more peripheral is something that would frustrate me as a player. This is all the more the case where, as another poster pointed out, for some classes, some of the new mechanics are more complicated or require additional tracking.

As a specific example, if I am playing a Monk, I am doing so either for the Avatar 4e archetype or for the kung fu Open Hand archetype. I would not be interested in playing either an Astral Self or a Way of Mercy monk.

As someone who likes the Wild mage sorcerer, this is also true for the sorcerer class.

So, power creep can be a concern even of it is just the weaker classes that are brought up.

 

[Horwath]

I think that power creep on classes that were weaker before is a legitimate concern. In many cases, the class archetypes in the PHB are those that are the most commonly associated with those classes, so having to choose between playing the archetype that you want, or an archetype that is more powerful but more peripheral is something that would frustrate me as a player. This is all the more the case where, as another poster pointed out, for some classes, some of the new mechanics are more complicated or require additional tracking.

As a specific example, if I am playing a Monk, I am doing so either for the Avatar 4e archetype or for the kung fu Open Hand archetype. I would not be interested in playing either an Astral Self or a Way of Mercy monk.

As someone who likes the Wild mage sorcerer, this is also true for the sorcerer class.

So, power creep can be a concern even of it is just the weaker classes that are brought up.

but now you have a baseline for homebrew of your weaker subclasses.

Now that we know that aberrant mind/clockwork is new baseline for sorcerer, you can move from that point.
Same as gloomstalker for ranger or echo knight for fighter.

 

[FrozenNorth]

but now you have a baseline for homebrew of your weaker subclasses.

Now that we know that aberrant mind/clockwork is new baseline for sorcerer, you can move from that point.
Same as gloomstalker for ranger or echo knight for fighter.

From my experience, the issue is that on the DM side, you don’t get to play the classes you homebrew, and from the player side, you have no assurance that the DM will accept your homebrew (or any homebrew at all).

 

[Bill Zebub]

From my experience, the issue is that on the DM side, you don’t get to play the classes you homebrew, and from the player side, you have no assurance that the DM will accept your homebrew (or any homebrew at all).

The corollary to that is that when content becomes official it’s supposedly “optional” but if you’re the DM and you ban content players think you’re the bad guy, and if you’re a player you may end up with the choice of playing with (alongside) the new options, or quitting.

So either way it’s more complicated than it seems.

 

[Minigiant]

You got many of them from the nonability traits as well. There was a formula in the DMG and much of the level adjustment came from those.

Yeah however most of those races and traits don't exist in 5e yet. And 3.5 was overly harsh if you got 2 bonuses.

The tiefling's LA+1 wasn't justified for it's +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma, darkness, some resists.

 

[Oofta]

I said Nonabilty Score racial traits.

The Nonabilty Score traits were weak.
The Ability scores were powerful. That's why you got LAs.

My (pre-Tasha's)mountain dwarf wizard appreciated the medium armor, advantage on poison save, poison resistance, not having to worry about encumbrance much. You may not think things like having a wizard that was also a blacksmith focusing on finer craftwork that didn't require a lot of brute strength is pointless, it wasn't to me. The con bonus was nice as well.

I liked having a sturdy wizard that could hold their own and wasn't totally a glass cannon. So excuse me if I simply disagree that the racial abilities are "pointless".

 

[Horwath]

Yeah however most of those races and traits don't exist in 5e yet. And 3.5 was overly harsh if you got 2 bonuses.

The tiefling's LA+1 wasn't justified for it's +2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma, darkness, some resists.

nothing in 3.5e was worth LA. Maybe draconic creature template for +1 or halfdragon for +3(if you were martial character)