D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Irlo]

Don't read into what I said. You're adding a bunch there that wasn't in my post.

I said if I do it for roleplaying, I am optimizing my roleplaying. I'm making a choice for ME to roleplay, which increases the roleplaying for ME. I never claimed superiority over other people in some way.

Look at it like this. Player A and player B roleplay equally well. Player A optimizes for combat and player B(me) optimizes for roleplay by picking an "inferior"(your word, not mine, and wrong word to boot) race that fits my concept. That is a choice that optimizes my roleplaying. It makes it easier to fit my concept, even if roleplaying ability is the same.

I mean, Player A and Player B can both roleplay being phenomenal investigators, but if Player B makes the choice to optimize that roleplay by picking up the Prodigy Feat and adding expertise to investigation skill, he has optimized his roleplay.

I think I understand what you're saying. I don't think that there's any more, less, better, or worse roleplaying based on the choices you described, though. By optimizing roleplay, do you mean increasing the chances of success at social and other non-combat encounters?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's interesting how the same thing can be right for one person and wrong for someone else. For me I want the floating ASIs to be gone, because that allows me to optimize my character concepts better. If I want to play a powerful Tiefling Sorcerer who has magic come to him easier and with greater power than other races, I can do that. If I want to play a Dwarven Sorcerer who while mining with his pick broke a gem containing magic from the making of the world and gained sorcerous uneasy unpredictable sorcerous powers(wild magic), I can do that, too. The set bonuses are there for me to use to add to my roleplay and concept. Again, that doesn't make my roleplaying better. I'm just explaining my personal reasons.

But wouldn't floating ASIs make that even better, then? If you want to have the standard bonuses that the races get for one character, you can do that. If you instead want a non-standard member of the race, you can do that too. If you want to play a commoner that just managed to wander into the adventure and isn't skilled in their abilities, you can put your racial ASIs wherever you feel would fit best for that character's backstory.

Having floating ASIs doesn't prevent people that liked the PHB's racial ASIs from using them. It just means that anyone can take whatever bonuses they feel best fit the character.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I understand what you're saying. I don't think that there's any more, less, better, or worse roleplaying based on the choices you described, though. By optimizing roleplay, do you mean increasing the chances of success at social and other non-combat encounters?

All optimizing is, is a player making choices that move the PC towards a goal. If the goal is combat effectiveness, anything you take that makes combat more effective is optimizing. Examples are putting the +2 in str or picking a +2 str race. If the choice roleplaying a certain concept, any choice that moves you towards that concept is optimizing roleplay. Examples are picking elf if the concept is elven wizard or Prodigy with expertise in investigation if being a great investigator is the concept. If the choice is made randomly or without any goal in mind, it's not optimizing, even if it makes you better at something(combat or investigation).

 

[Maxperson]

But wouldn't floating ASIs make that even better, then? If you want to have the standard bonuses that the races get for one character, you can do that. If you instead want a non-standard member of the race, you can do that too. If you want to play a commoner that just managed to wander into the adventure and isn't skilled in their abilities, you can put your racial ASIs wherever you feel would fit best for that character's backstory.

Having floating ASIs doesn't prevent people that liked the PHB's racial ASIs from using them. It just means that anyone can take whatever bonuses they feel best fit the character.

Not for me. The lack of racial ASIs removes Roleplaying staples and makes the races more generic(not generic, just a move in that direction). While all half-orcs had +2 strength, I could use that as part of my roleplaying concept. The racial identity backed up the concept. Floating ASIs mean that half-orcs really aren't stronger than other races, even if I can choose to put +2 there and make my individual half-orc strong.

 

[Irlo]

All optimizing is, is a player making choices that move the PC towards a goal. If the goal is combat effectiveness, anything you take that makes combat more effective is optimizing. Examples are putting the +2 in str or picking a +2 str race. If the choice roleplaying a certain concept, any choice that moves you towards that concept is optimizing roleplay. Examples are picking elf if the concept is elven wizard or Prodigy with expertise in investigation if being a great investigator is the concept. If the choice is made randomly or without any goal in mind, it's not optimizing, even if it makes you better at something(combat or investigation).

Got it, thanks. I would say that combat effectiveness is (or at least can be) a roleplaying goal, too. One doesn't have to chose between optimizing for combat and optimizing for roleplay.

 

[Arilyn]

Because a long time ago a designer decided halflings were a rogue race, teiflings weren't and we've just been justifying that choice for no reason using an outdated boogieman called 'powrgaming', 'optimizing' or 'being a player' ever since.

What's amusing is that tieflings used to get a - 2 Cha. Now they get +2 so they can be warlocks.

 

[Arilyn]

It's because long ago halflings were hobbits and hobbits were well known as thieves. If you want to blame someone, blame Tolkien and his fans that insisted hobbits should be in D&D.

Bilbo was never a thief. He was picked to play the role of burglar because hobbits are very quiet. Bilbo had never stolen a thing in his life and certainly had no skill in lockpicking. Hobbits like to live in small lawful communities, farm, drink, eat and smoke pipeweed. A few "Tookish" ones might go off and have adventures, which is not something anyone should approve of.

 

[Maxperson]

Got it, thanks. I would say that combat effectiveness is (or at least can be) a roleplaying goal, too. One doesn't have to chose between optimizing for combat and optimizing for roleplay.

Yes. Absolutely. Let's say your character concept is to be the best duelist in the 5 kingdoms. Optimizing combat is also optimizing roleplay. Overlap exists. It's just not usually present.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Clearly the solution(s) is racial level limits, race as class, and making humans the most powerful race! Gygax knew what he was doing when he did that!

 

[Bill Zebub]

To be against type, there must be a type to begin with. The Tasha's stat option removes types.

I can understand those words, but I find the meaning so bizarre as to be surreal. Decades of precedent, in D&D, other games, fiction, movies, etc., including the fluff and non-ASI racial abilities still in 5e, are not erased because Tasha’s makes this one change. 20 years from now you will be able to ask even a non-gamer to describe elves or dwarves or orcs and you won’t find anything changed.