D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Hey, @Vaalingrade and @Snarf Zagyg - Can we not do this, please?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Tasha's cauldron has a lot of OP to broken stuff in it from the custom race, variant class, race and archetype rules and several spells and feats are also up there.

Twilight cleric is also a big one peace is also great and the other subclasses are often better than the phb as well.

The more I see it in play the less I like this book. Didn't get that from Xanathars.

So after seeing it used there's multiple things I don't want used.

Anyway that's just me. Your thoughts?

My experience is just the opposite. The more I see of Tasha's the more I like it. Meanwhile the more I look at Xanathar's the less I care if it's used. Fundamentally Xanathar's was written by the team that wrote the PHB and is full of ideas that they had for the PHB but left on the cutting room floor, while Tasha's was written by a team that had been playing 5e for years and understood its shortcomings and set out to both fix and expand the game. This means that I have wanted to play and have seen played far far more out of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything than I have Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

Admittedly I do ban the Twilight Cleric - and only allow the Cleric of Peace if they are going to be played as a borderline pacifist cleric which the mechanics in no way enforce. But those are the only things.

Fundamentally yes the sorcerer subclasses in Tasha's are just better than the subclasses in the PHB an Xanathar's. This is because the PHB sorcerer is the weakest full caster in the game, crippled by the number of spells they know. The Tasha's subclasses have levelled up to be in the same league as the wizard while also being stronger thematically. This doesn't make them broken. It just points out what utter drek e.g. the Storm Sorcerer is. And yes the Tasha's Beastmaster is better than the "give yourself an escort mission" PHB Beastmaster and it upgraded the base class - but the Ranger needed that.

And then we have the interesting things being done with the druid class - from the ones that are interested enough in starts to have built Stonehenge to the fungal ones and the wildfire ones. A huge improvement.

Buffing weak classes is not a balance issue; the balance issue is the existence of those weak classes in the first place. Buffing strong ones would be - but weak ones only brings them up to the benchmark. And the Tasha's subclasses are mostly to me interesting and inspiring in a way most of Xanathar's aren't. And yes this does push things a little. So what?

 

[MGibster]

...which you can do fine without an extra starting +2 Str bonus. I mean, if it's about being able to customize, you put your stats in whatever order you want anyway, and in most modern character generation methods, you can even pick the numbers.

The argument you are making remains grounded in optimization, which I am just not really sympathetic to. I'm more a "setting first" guy, so when there doesn't appear to be any argument that justifies floating ASIs that isn't "players can get that extra +2 where they want it", that isn't "this is why it works in the world", well... it may not be for me.

Oh, of course you can. But being able to put the +2 wherever you want makes it easier. Like I said, I'm not a fan of floating ASIs, but for a variety of reasons, it seems that most people online are fans of them for one reason or another including avoiding biological essentialism, allowing player freedom, etc., etc. I don't really care about the biological essentialism argument, but I do find the argument about making the character you want to be compelling. Even if I still don't like floating ASIs. Oddly enough, I was a big fan of them dropping racial penalties.

Just bards, and the people that play them.

For the first time ever, I made a bard character and played him in an Eberron campaign earlier this year. He died in the very first session. I can't even remember his name.

 

[Parmandur]

No.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For the first time ever, I made a bard character and played him in an Eberron campaign earlier this year. He died in the very first session. I can't even remember his name.

That is the best kind of bard!

Dead, and unmemorable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As an Eberron fan, one of the main elven cultures in the setting is very warlike, with roving bands of warriors on horseback raiding across the countryside looking for a good fight.
A culture of druidic orcs were responsible for helping to save the world from a planar incursion millennia ago, and some of their descendants keep the wards that bind their ancient foes intact to this day.
Another culture of orc paladins serve as the self-appointed guardians on the border of the Demon Wastes, keeping the horrors within from spilling out into the rest of the continent.
The Vulkoori drow are tribal jungle dwellers that worship nature spirits.

In each of these cases, I'd argue that the default ASIs for the races in question don't necessarily fit with the culture of the race as depicted in this setting, and the same can be said for any setting that differs from the Forgotten Realms/Greyhawk-established racial "norms". That in and of itself is a pretty substantial setting lore-based justification for floating ASIs, in my mind.

Which is why cultural or background ASIs are a better answer than Tasha's, "Whatever you want. We don't care anymore".

 

[Blue]

Healing .... in 5e .... is anemic?

The one thing I appreciate about the internet and this forum is that you repeatedly learn that people have opinions that you did not think were possible.

(Unless this is sarcasm?)

How can you not think healing is anemic in 5e?! In combat healing is pitiful. Compare Cure Wounds for d8+ability and Inflict Wounds for 3d10.

What keeps healing from being bad is the heal-from-0 rule, but that has nothing at all to do with the amount of healing an Action will bring is much less than spending the same action and resources on harming.

 

[Parmandur]

Which is why cultural or background ASIs are a better answer than Tasha's, "Whatever you want. We don't care anymore".

Same difference: from a gameplay balance point of view, the options are neutral.

 

[Blue]

I just can't get behind this. Especially with the huge emphasis on bounded accuracy, that extra +2 is really not necessary. The whole argument for floating ASIs boils down to optimization, and I am just not sympathetic to arguments based on optimization. It would be different if having a slightly lower score had a huge impact, but it just doesn't.

The point is not if the +2 is necessary, it's if you are on even keel with the rest of the characters.

Next time you run, offer that anyone who wants may skip racial modifiers. They get nothing in return. See how many people do so.

If no one had the +2/+1, I'd be fine with that as well - it's not needed. But when characters are different in power you start getting the "haves" picking up feats and getting new things while the "have-nots" are taking ASIs to catch up. It's also the problem with rolling, where between 4-5 players the one who rolled best and the one who rolled worst will have a substantial gap.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Same difference: from a gameplay balance point of view, the options are neutral.

Its a matter of philosophy and worldbuilding, not game balance. Admittedly not the point of this thread, but it is my primary problem with Tasha's.