D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Blue]

Re: Half-orc wizards- again, the only reason that +2 makes a difference is for optimization purposes. If the draw of a half-orc wizard is to play against type, the fact that the +2 is elsewhere shouldn't bother a player.

It is to keep a level playing field between the various players. Stop calling that "optimization".

 

[Blue]

Again, compared to what?

I gave you a concrete example in Cure Wounds vs. Inflict Wounds.

I agree that the rules in 5e prioritize dealing damage to healing during combat, but that's because:

1. Of the generous death save rules, there isn't a real need to get people healed during combat; and

2. Characters can "pop back up," and there isn't a strong need for full healing; and

3. Characters have a ton of hit points to begin with, and easily recharge between combats; and

4. The healing outside of combat is so generous, it doesn't matter if you're fully healed in combat; and

5. It generally makes a lot more sense to do damage than to heal, people will almost always prioritize doing damage than healing ... even if it's equal.*

*This is a math thing- in other words, if you take out X critter, then you avoid all damage from that critter. It's part of the "focus fire" strategy.

In-combat healing is a problem in search of a solution, because when the solutions are provided people don't take them. There isn't a massive demand for healing magic items - it's not like the staff of healing is the single coolest item in the game.

If this was a real issue, then the optional healing surge rules (again, DMG 266-67) would be much more popular. But they aren't. That said-

If you think in-combat healing is an issue in your game, then you should use the surge healing rules. Heck, use the optional optional rule to do it as a bonus action.

None of that addresses in-combat healing not being anemic. It talks about other rules why you think that in-combat healing isn't needed, but doesn't address the point under discussion - in-combat healing gets you a lot less for the same resources and action than other in-combat efforts. If it's notably less efficient, that can accurately be called anemic. That there are other non-healing mechanisms like death saves out there doesn't change that truth.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Setting first" is meaningless. Meaningless.

A PC is not an average member of a race. They in no way define that race for the world.

If it did, then 1 in 11 of every single race that gets a +2 could have a 20 in an ability score. Because that's the chance of rolling an 18 on 4d6 drop the lowest, plus your +2.

The flip side is that you are saying that while 1 in 11 have a 20 in some races, not 1 in 1,000, not 1 in 1,000,000, not one in the entire race could have a 20 if their ability modifier isn't +2.

Because YES, you can play the outlier. If you don't believe me, think about how so many people over the editions have wanted to play "the good drow" or other that plays against type.

And I'm not talking about 20 to optimize. I'm using it as a useful tool to show you "easily and commonly achievable" and "utterly impossible" illogically stand right next to each other in your world view.

So again, PC ability scores are NOT the monster manual ability scores, have nothing to do with the average for a setting. And players can and do play outliers from their race.

This is a matter of play style. I don't accept that PCs are so unique and special that they share nothing in common with the species that birthed them other than superficial appearance. Setting first is absolutely a thing.

 

[Jer]

This assumes that the essentialism argument holds a huge amount of water, which I really don't.

No this assumes that the PR problems around essentialism holds a huge amount of water, and they actually really do.

Whether you personally have a problem with them or not they make a lot of folks uncomfortable. Dealing with the remnants of 19th century racial theories in the game is not worth the headaches it causes, so Wizards is getting rid of them. Moving them to cultural bonuses would have not helped the PR problem around them and in fact probably would make it worse.

 

[Blue]

If no one cares that a rule is changed, why change it?

Exactly, I'm glad you agree that social pressure required to change a rule, not irrelevant to change a rule.

Also, majority rules is a bad way to make rules changes anyway. You just create an irritated minority (especially hard to deal with if the DM is the one that's irritated).

Changes will never serve everyone, but trying to maximize the net positive from any rule change seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No this assumes that the PR problems around essentialism holds a huge amount of water, and they actually really do.

Whether you personally have a problem with them or not they make a lot of folks uncomfortable. Dealing with the remnants of 19th century racial theories in the game is not worth the headaches it causes, so Wizards is getting rid of them. Moving them to cultural bonuses would have not helped the PR problem around them and in fact probably would make it worse.

Fair enough.

 

[Blue]

This is a matter of play style. I don't accept that PCs are so unique and special that they share nothing in common with the species that birthed them other than superficial appearance. Setting first is absolutely a thing.

Agreed. They have lots in common. Pretending that where a +2/+1 goes make them have "nothing in common" is just a false stance for anyone who understands distribution and outliers. Heck, rolling 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest will provide more variation than that. Your stance is provably wrong.

Not saying it's not a valid way to play, just saying that the justification you are using to play that way does not hold water. Do it because "this is how I want it, even if it doesn't make sense statistically" or "I hold with tradition". But that they "don't hold anything in common" can not carry your argument.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

None of that addresses in-combat healing not being anemic. It talks about other rules why you think that in-combat healing isn't needed, but doesn't address the point under discussion - in-combat healing gets you a lot less for the same resources and action than other in-combat efforts. If it's notably less efficient, that can accurately be called anemic. That there are other non-healing mechanisms like death saves out there doesn't change that truth.

But .... it does. Because it's not a problem.

I don't know how else to put it. If it was a problem ... as in an actual, real-world problem that many people had, then people would be clamoring and demanding solutions.

But they aren't! There is a reason that almost no one knows about the optional healing surge rule.

Well, one reason is because (all together now) no one reads the DMG.

But the other reason is because in-combat healing just isn't a bona fide problem for most tables. It's a theoretical problem. We can look at it from all sorts of angles- maybe even the whole distaste of healbots in D&D (although I know stuff about Mercy in Overwatch and healsl**s) ...

Again, though, no one really says "healing" as a whole is anemic in 5e. So it becomes healing in combat is anemic ... but people have very valid reasons for not using healing in combat for structural reasons, and in order to make healing in combat a real thing, you'd have to really make it overly powerful and/or remove it from the action economy.

Which, uh, seems to be the issue with some of the recent material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed. They have lots in common. Pretending that where a +2/+1 goes make them have "nothing in common" is just a false stance for anyone who understands distribution and outliers. Heck, rolling 3d6 or 4d6 drop the lowest will provide more variation than that. Your stance is provably wrong.

Not saying it's not a valid way to play, just saying that the justification you are using to play that way does not hold water. Do it because "this is how I want it, even if it doesn't make sense" or "I hold with tradition". But that they "don't hold anything in common" can not carry your argument.

There are many things that the members of a race hold in common. ASIs could be and for a long time were one of them. It wasn't necessary, but it did make sense.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Quick and easy is not a compelling argument for me, no matter how much WotC seemed obsessed with it.

Level Up already has a robust culture and background system, so that's what I use.

All fine and good (I rather like Level Up myself), but "A third party product does it better" isn't a reason for WotC to not bother experimenting with how ASIs are distributed at character creation in the core game.

The way Tasha's handles it may be "quick and easy" as I put it, but a more robust method would have put it on the backburner in development for a further four years when it was already an issue WotC had decided they wanted to address.

Maybe the 2024 updates will implement a more robust system and Tasha's was just a "patch" for the interim, but honestly, I think floating ASIs do the job well enough - and not incidentally, save a lot of page space in the process.