D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Minigiant]

Yeah, heaven forbid any species be depicted as having an iconic look and feel. Every species should just be humans with rubber masks, right?

+2 to a score doesn't actually make a character look or feel much different outside of combat.

It's a cosmetic bonus that does nothing but boost power gaming.

 

[Umbran]

We have been asked to drop the gender discussion, which I have. This is about your abuse of the laugh button. I'll drop it though, but just know that the next instance of it will be reported.

Mod Note:
1) Folks, please don't abuse the reaction emojis. They are not intended for mockery.

2) Folks, please don't threaten each other with reports - the mods do not take kindly to being weaponized. The point where you think this is appropriate is also the point where you should probably disengage from that user entirely, and maybe use the Ignore feature for a while.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do you have any evidence to show that I'm wrong?

Well this one guy said:

Tasha's gave people more flexibility.

Which was a big change not even just 5e, but the entire 3e bloodline to that point when it came to species.

Otherwise, I've played in seven billon games and every one of them was impacted by the change.

 

[Oofta]

Well this one guy said:


Which was a big change not even just 5e, but the entire 3e bloodline to that point when it came to species.

Otherwise, I've played in seven billon games and every one of them was impacted by the change.

So ... "I'm right you're wrong". Again.

If you have anything to actually discuss let me know, but until then have a good one!

 

[Horwath]

Well this one guy said:


Which was a big change not even just 5e, but the entire 3e bloodline to that point when it came to species.

Otherwise, I've played in seven billon games and every one of them was impacted by the change.

As I mentioned 20 pages ago, better to have floating ASI than 10 elven subraces like in 3.5e just to get every possible ASI out there.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think the flexibility is pretty questionable. Yes, in theory you can arrange your ability scores in more ways, but in practice it just means that you're expected to get the same score in the main stat than everyone else, so the end result is characters who are mechanically more homogenised than before.

I don't think the original method was great either, but I really wish we could have a system that would actually tolerate or even encourage more variable ability arrangements. "You can now be diverse by being identical to everyone else" seems like a rather hollow outcome to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We did this for a while. Your STR had to be at least equal to the maximum damage the weapon could do. So, a greatsword would max out at 12 (on 2d6), you needed a STR 12 or had disadvantage on your attack.

However, we quickly realized it was a pointless rule. Anyone who plans to fight with weapons will like have a high enough strength to wield it properly anyway. Also, despite common misconceptions, it would be easier for a low-strength PC to use a greatsword than a longbow...

So, we dropped the whole thing.

That's a genuinely great example of the sort of entirely pointless houserule that makes up about 50% of houserules, with another 30% being "a rule that's either the same as or nearly identical to the rulebook, but that the DM/players didn't know was already a rule".

Good on you all for spotting it was pointless and dropping it though, the world needs more of that!

 

[Bill Zebub]

You fundamental continue to miss the point and keep switching to new one.

The point is that the base system has no base incentive to play certain race/class combos because players cannot estimate the useful of intangibles and secondary scores without the DM telling them.

Until TCOE, Charisma is USELESS to fighter UNTIL the DM stats it is.

There's no rule against short players in the NBA, either. Right?

(I hear Spud Webb plays an orc wizard in a long-running campaign.)

 

[Umbran]

Otherwise, I've played in seven billon games and every one of them was impacted by the change.

Please stop the snarky hyperbole. It isn't constructive, and makes nothing better.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As I mentioned 20 pages ago, better to have floating ASI than 10 elven subraces like in 3.5e just to get every possible ASI out there.

Yeah, that's fair. I think subraces were a mistake. I think a nice middle point compromise position could have been making the subrace's worth of the race mechanics floating. (So for example all elves get +2 to dex and basic elven things like the trance etc, then they have floating +1 and get to choose one additional trait from a list of elfy traits.)