D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Bill Zebub]

Yes, I want the rules for halflings to inform me how the halflings are.

I get that. I don’t agree, but I get it.

However…

If they don't, I don't need such rules. Then I'd rather just have some sort of freeform character generation without races being a rules concept at all.

…feels like a huge and unnecessary leap. I hear you, but I don’t understand.

 

[Minigiant]

Overall, ability scores in D&D are ill-suited to representing physical differences based on physical form.

Yes and No

The problem isn't ability scores but what ability scores represent.

10 meaning +0, 12 meaning +1, 14 meaning +2 etc. That isn't well suited for physical and mental differences.

14 Strength meaning +2 to attack rolls with a greataxe, damage rolls with a long sword, checks to lift a rock, and checks to climb a tree is easy to remember and simple to learn. But it's a bad mechanic alongside a singled 20 roll on it's own under scrutiny.

Each pillar of D&D is different. In base D&D, Combat is frequent and has lot of small effect rolls. Exploration is common with rolls that have small or major effects. Social is rare but has 0-3 major rolls. And since each table is different, the pillars can change. An Intrigue Immersive game might have many incremental rolls like how Combat is in the base game. Or a table can cut talking right out and make Social disappear.

That's why if 5th edition was going to stick with isn't unbalanced and simple ability score system, it should have came out with variant rules to turn up the levers of Combat, Exploration, and Social and have ways to get all scores involved.

So DMs and Worldbuidlers ended up creating variants of their own. However,it doesn't work for anything playing base D&D and not running pure steroetypes. That's why Tasha's customization options happened. The second you leaned on ability scres to respresent physical andmental aspects beyond the edges of stereotypes, the whole game collapses down to a weapons combat sim because everything else breaks under the raw simple mechanics.

 

[Oofta]

Yes and No

The problem isn't ability scores but what ability scores represent.

10 meaning +0, 12 meaning +1, 14 meaning +2 etc. That isn't well suited for physical and mental differences.

14 Strength meaning +2 to attack rolls with a greataxe, damage rolls with a long sword, checks to lift a rock, and checks to climb a tree is easy to remember and simple to learn. But it's a bad mechanic alongside a singled 20 roll on it's own under scrutiny.

Each pillar of D&D is different. In base D&D, Combat is frequent and has lot of small effect rolls. Exploration is common with rolls that have small or major effects. Social is rare but has 0-3 major rolls. And since each table is different, the pillars can change. An Intrigue Immersive game might have many incremental rolls like how Combat is in the base game. Or a table can cut talking right out and make Social disappear.

That's why if 5th edition was going to stick with isn't unbalanced and simple ability score system, it should have came out with variant rules to turn up the levers of Combat, Exploration, and Social and have ways to get all scores involved.

So DMs and Worldbuidlers ended up creating variants of their own. However,it doesn't work for anything playing base D&D and not running pure steroetypes. That's why Tasha's customization options happened. The second you leaned on ability scres to respresent physical andmental aspects beyond the edges of stereotypes, the whole game collapses down to a weapons combat sim because everything else breaks under the raw simple mechanics.

Wow. That quite the diatribe on something I've never seen. Nothing is perfect, but the skill system works well enough with all the groups I've been with.

 

[DND_Reborn]

why? if this is true why not give men +1 str and women +1 wis?

FWIW, we do at our table, but not in the way you are suggesting.

First, we have a Capacity Modifier (for weight carried. Male get x10, female get x8) which is multiplied by half your Strength score to determine your base weight limit before being encumbered. So, if two PCs are both STR 10, but one is male and the other female, the male can carry 50 lbs. and the female 40 lbs. before suffering encumbrance penalties. Small males are x3, and small females are x2, so also have a difference.

Second, we use exhaustion a lot, and female characters gain an additional level of endurance (a free level of exhaustion).

We did it this way because ability scores represent your capacity to utilize your ability. There is no issue with a female Gnome or a male Half-Orc both having STR 20. All this means (to us) is they get +5 when attempting Strength ability checks because they understand how to use what muscle they have effectively.

 

[Minigiant]

Wow. That quite the diatribe on something I've never seen. Nothing is perfect, but the skill system works well enough with all the groups I've been with.

The point is your table doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

Each table is different. The simple base mechanics of 5e's ability scores cannot adjust to everyone's playstyle, everyone's combat/exploration/social ratios, everyone's genre range of supported PCs The mechanic is too simple for that.

For example: The DMG describes an Intrigue game but provide no rules for it.

So you have to either
1) Add variants rules to adjust to the table
or
2) All player's to adjust ASI to match their table's ratios, genres, and playsytle.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Common assumption, PCs are heroic adventurers.
just from the Phb : « adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their race. »

I’m aware. My point is that the game shouldn’t go so far with this mindset that PCs becomes a different kind of being from their family and neighbors.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't have any interest in playing or watching 'real people', to be honest.

I want to play the people emotionally unstable and empowered enough to go out in the wilderness and rough up the natives and wildlife for money and as a side effect (largely un intended) save the world.

Odd that you put “real people” in quotes, even though I never said that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Odd that you put “real people” in quotes, even though I never said that.

Those would be scare quotes, my good man.

 

[Minigiant]

I’m aware. My point is that the game shouldn’t go so far with this mindset that PCs becomes a different kind of being from their family and neighbors.

I think most people have it backwards.

It's not that the PC are different kinds of people. It's more that the people who are built different, are freaks of nature, prodigies, or hve fortunate lives are more likely to be successful PCs.

There are NPCs with usually ability scores and features. Many a orc village has scrawy runts who become natural clerics, wizards, and warlock advisers for the chief or nobles

 

[Oofta]

The point is your table doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

Each table is different. The simple base mechanics of 5e's ability scores cannot adjust to everyone's playstyle, everyone's combat/exploration/social ratios, everyone's genre range of supported PCs The mechanic is too simple for that.

For example: The DMG describes an Intrigue game but provide no rules for it.

So you have to either
1) Add variants rules to adjust to the table
or
2) All player's to adjust ASI to match their table's ratios, genres, and playsytle.

So? I fail to see a point. Why does it matter that every table is different? That's kind of the point. They tried forcing a single play style, it didn't work. Now we have flexibility for each table to make the game work for them...which seems to work for millions of people.