D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[DND_Reborn]

If I were in charge, I’d also get rid of ASIs while leveling.

But... but... but...

NO!!!!! The HORROR!!

You monster, you!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

To address the OP . . . no, I really don't think that Tasha's (as a whole) is broken. Certain parts of it may be, but you can point to literally any official D&D 5e supplement and pick out a few mechanics that are unbalanced. The SCAG has some good/decent subclasses (Bladesinger Wizard, Arcana Cleric, Swashbuckler Rogues), but also some of the worst ones in all of D&D 5e (Battlerager Barbarian, Purple Dragon Knight Fighter, Storm Sorcerer, Undying Warlock). Xanathar's Guide to Everything had some extremely potent/abusable subclasses (Hexblade Warlock, Grave Domain Cleric, Horizon Walker Ranger, Divine Soul Sorcerer), but also quite a few duds (Arcane Archer and Cavalier Fighter, Circle of Dreams Druid, War Magic Wizard).

Sure, TCoE has quite a few very potent subclasses, some of which are outright broken (Twilight and Peace Domain Clerics and Scribes Wizard, I'm looking at you), but it also has some fairly "meh" options as well. The Oath of Glory Paladin really isn't amazing mechanically until its last 6 levels (compared to other paladins, that is. The fact that it's a paladin means that it's never going to be awful), the Alchemist still sucks, the Swarmkeeper really isn't much to get excited about, and the Soulknife losing out on opportunity attacks is kind of a big deal. Sure, there is a bit of "powercreep," but it's mostly for the classes that really need it to put them on par with more potent classes (Monks, Rangers, Sorcerers).

I don't care if the magic items break the game balance/bounded accuracy, because that sort of thing can always be adjusted to your own specific campaign, and magic items were never assumed in the underlying math of 5e's Bounded Accuracy.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If I were in charge, I’d also get rid of ASIs while leveling.

And replace them with Feats, right?

~Sees Anakin stare~

...and replace them with Feats... right?

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is interesting, but in actual play, I have never found having a lower prime stat to be crippling, either as a player or as a DM. I've always managed to feel effective and contribute to the party, and I've always seen pcs in my game do the same.

Fine. You haven't found it important. Not everyone is you. To me it's like having a stone in your shoe. That is not important in the grand scheme of things - it's just annoying every time it comes up. Which is every single to hit and damage roll for me.

I mean, if the difference is so crippling, why is it that non-optimal pcs have done fine over the years 5e has been out? And they have- I have a huge stable of pcs in my campaign, and many of them are weird combo meal types.

The difference isn't crippling. It's just (a) significant and (b) obnoxious. It's possible to play with a character that doesn't reach the benchmarks. It's also possible to hike for miles with a pebble in your shoe. And then there are those mosquito alarms that not everyone can hear but are truly obnoxious to those that can. And colourblind people don't find some combinations of patterns obnoxious.

Are you literally saying that "because I @the Jester do not find this thing obnoxious it is not and can not be obnoxious for a large group of people"?

I'll stand by my position that, even if you use fixed ASIs, you have plenty of opportunity to get a high score in your main stat unless you use a pretty unusual stat generation method. You can already optimize enough.

And I'll stand by my position that WotC objectively set a benchmark of 16 in the primary stat at level 1 as shown by all the pregens. And therefore if you do not have a 16 in your primary stat you do not have a high score in your main stat. You have one that does not meet the benchmark.

I further am going to say that if you are playing fixed array or point buy (which are the standard methods I've seen used) it is physically impossible to get a 16 without a +1 from your race.

Therefore if +16 is the benchmark and you use the standard methods it is literally physically impossible to get a stat high enough to meet the level 1 benchmark with fixed ASIs in the four stats your racial ASIs don't help.

Now it's possible that you run a divergent table that either (a) uses dice to generate your ability scores, (b) uses something even rarer, or (c) has a benchmark below the one the WotC pregens all suggest. But if any of these are true it is because you and your group use a pretty unusual stat generation method or you and your group have pretty unusual benchmarks for a high score in your main stat.

 

[Dausuul]

If I were in charge, I’d also get rid of ASIs while leveling.

If I were in charge, I'd get rid of ability scores altogether.

(It's probably a good thing that I am not in charge.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean, if the difference is so crippling, .

There’s a wide gulf between “makes a noticeable difference” and “crippling”.

 

[MoonSong]

There’s a wide gulf between “makes a noticeable difference” and “crippling”.

But how can someone say (I'm paraphrasing) "get a 16 to pull your weight" and not mean the latter?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fine. You haven't found it important. Not everyone is you. To me it's like having a stone in your shoe. That is not important in the grand scheme of things - it's just annoying every time it comes up. Which is every single to hit and damage roll for me.
.

That’s actually a great way of expressing it.

It’s not that it’s “crippling.” As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s not just the -1. It’s that what you’re giving up for it is underwhelming. I kinda like the idea of an orc wizard, but then I think, “12 DC Saving Throws? Just so I can be unusual? Naw.”

 

[Bill Zebub]

But how can someone say (I'm paraphrasing) "get a 16 to pull your weight" and not mean the latter?

If other people are pressuring you to do that they are in the wrong. And, in any event, that behavior is independent of Tasha’s.

I’m speaking solely about my (and others’) preference for having a 16 for our own characters, compared to whatever vague benefit we might get from the alternative.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, if the difference is so crippling, why is it that non-optimal pcs have done fine over the years 5e has been out? And they have- I have a huge stable of pcs in my campaign, and many of them are weird combo meal types.

It's lessthat it's crippling and more that The PC with the 16 will do hit noticeably more often and deal noticeably more damage.

That's kinda how 5e balances the fighter (STR ptimary) and cleric (STR secondary). The fighter only has +2 higher STR and uses a weapon one step higher but hads some much more damage. Even before Extra Attack at level 5.

Compounding bonuses.

5e;s simple easy to understand system relies on little, easy to remember, bonuses piling on each other.
Lose somes of those bonuses and the system (fart noise) collapses.
Your 14 STR fighter better take GW Fighting and a heavy weapon. Don't make a 14 STR spear and shield hoplite. Game doesn't work that way.

By making the base game very very simple, WOTC gave themselves no leeway for nonstereotypical PCs.

There's no +1 Halfling racial bonus to daggers and slings or Gnome bonus to warpicks and hammers.
There's no +1 to hit bonus for all light blades.
There's no making all swords finesse.
There's no adding 2 fire damage to attacks for Tieflings and Dragonborn.
There's no "Well X,Y and Zfeature to make STR based Orc Rogues"