D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

As a big, fat guy who routinely watches big fat powerlifters, I say thee nay.
I didn't say fat = weak. Andre the Giant wasn't exactly a sculpted mass of muscles. Nobody would accuse that body type of being fast or nimble, though.
On top of that, a flat bonus to a generic stat isn't the only way to represent or differentiate such differences, it's just How It's Always Been Done.
Nobody on my side of the debate has said it's the only way. It's just one way that should remain present as long as stats represent those things. So long as the game has strength scores, a strong race would and should have a bonus to strength. They can also have more flavorful abilities, but you create inherent contradictions and disconnects if you go only racial abilities and leave off racial stat bonuses.

And now, hopefully, it's not how it's done anymore.

Racial disconnects for everybody! You can have a disconnect! And you can have a disconnect! And you can have a disconnect!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I didn't say fat = weak.
I didn't say it. I personally am fat and weak. Other big, fat guys are fat and strong. Body type ain't everything.
Nobody would accuse that body type of being fast or nimble, though.
I direct you to the TV tropes 'Acrofatic' entry. And before you say those are fictional, so are goliaths.

Nobody on my side of the debate has said it's the only way. It's just one way that should remain present as long as stats represent those things. So long as the game has strength scores, a strong race would and should have a bonus to strength. They can also have more flavorful abilities, but you create inherent contradictions and disconnects if you go only racial abilities and leave off racial stat bonuses.
These 'contradictions' aren't inherent. They're just preferences influenced by years of tradition.

These rules are for PCs. Most people don't make NPCs with the PC rules. (Don't care about the PH wording, it doesn't matter).
 


I didn't say it. I personally am fat and weak. Other big, fat guys are fat and strong. Body type ain't everything.
Find me a fat acrobat or sprinter, or thin sumo. Body type matters.
I direct you to the TV tropes 'Acrofatic' entry. And before you say those are fictional, so are goliaths.
They are utterly unrealistic, where goliaths are not. Big and strong is a realistic thing. Fat and fast is not.
These 'contradictions' aren't inherent. They're just preferences influenced by years of tradition.
They are in fact, and is a fact, inherent. Strong =/= strong is a contradiction. So long as there is a strength score, that score will be used to represent what is strong and what is weak. You can't have a strong race without a bonus to strength score without there being the strong =/= strong contradiction OR having magic/supernatural involved.
 

The DMG don’t go as precise as you say.
They present the Hack and Slash, and the Immersive storytelling as exaggerated examples,
and add a list of question to help the DM define his own play style somewhere in between.
My point is mechanically the base D&D isn't balanced nor designed to work in non-sterotypical heavy roll or heavy hack n slash table without heavy DM adjudication or a 3rd party module.
 

Bears are fat and fast.

Also, this isn't "fast" per se, but here's a passage from the Robert E. Howard Conan story, "The Tower of the Elephant":

'Then follow me.' And turning, Taurus leaped up, caught the wall and drew himself up. The man's suppleness was amazing, considering his bulk; he seemed almost to glide up over the edge of the coping.

Maybe not terribly realistic, but I'd rather play a fantasy game that enables this than one that doesn't.

Here's some more description:

A low laugh answered him. Taurus was as tall as the Cimmerian, and heavier; he was big-bellied and fat, but his every movement betokened a subtle dynamic magnetism, which was reflected in the keen eyes that glinted vitally, even in the starlight. He was barefooted and carried a coil of what looked like a thin, strong rope, knotted at regular intervals. 'Who are you?' he whispered.

'Conan, a Cimmerian,' answered the other. 'I came seeking a way to steal Yara's jewel, that men call the Elephant's Heart.'

Conan sensed the man's great belly shaking in laughter, but it was not derisive.
 

i don't understand... if the fluff is strong or smart or wise or charsmatic it is just fluff... it is a general tendancy.

in general men have more upper body strength then women. in general woman have more emotional intelligence then men... I personally am not as strong as my fiancé, and she can out lift me. Her (as 1 woman) being stronger then me (as 1 man) doesn't invalidate that 'men have more upper body strength then women' it just is the micro/macro looks
You prove my point with that argument. Goliaths all have +2 strength. Elves do not. An elf can roll an 18 and a Goliath can roll a 12+2 and get a 14. Generally Goliaths will be stronger than elves, though some elves will be stronger than an individual Goliath, despite ALL Goliaths having a strength bonus. A race being stronger just means that due to the strength bonus, the average member of that race will be stronger than the average member of the weaker race.
 


I wonder how much this argument would have changed (or changed at all), if Tasha's had instituted a three-point system. What if:

Your Origin gives you a +1 to any stat of your choice
Your Background gives you a +1 to a fixed ability score (Adept = +1 Int, Acolyte = +1 Wis, Athlete = +1 Con, etc.)
Your Class gives you a +1 to the key ability score (Bard = +1 Cha, Cleric = +1 Wis, Fighter = +1 Str or +1 Dex, etc.)

Would this have solved this ability score issue, in your opinion, by spreading them out across the character build instead of concentrating them on "race" alone? Or do you think it would it have only exacerbated the problem, creating an incentive for players to cherry-pick all the options just to get an all-important +3 to Whatever?
 


Remove ads

Top