D&D 5E Is Tasha's Broken?

[Bill Zebub]

But if ability scores do not differentiate characters, why are we having them? Why we have elaborate systems for buying and boosting numbers that do not mean anything?

I have to agree with you there. To be a little hyperbolic, we really just need 2: Constitution, and "Your Primary Attribute", which you could fluff however you want.

More soberly, different attributes affect skills and saving throws and maybe a few other things. But in combat (which is by far the most mechanically significant part of the game) Dex helps (sometimes) with AC and Initiative, and otherwise all that matters is Con and Primary. That bugs me about 5e.

However, while I agree with you here, "differentiating characters with attributes" and "differentiating races with attributes" are, in my mind, two entirely different topics. If we assume that 5e does a poor job differentiating characters with attributes in general, it follows that they do a poor job differentiating races as well.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's just colossally stupid though. At that point you effectively have two different point buys on top of each other for no sensible reason. If they want that end result, then they should just expand the point buy to allow buying higher stats and give more points.

It's not "colossally stupid", it's just a little sub-optimal.

And it does, to some extent, suppress min-maxing if you can't buy two (or three?) 17's but can only buy a 15 and add 2 to one of them.

 

[James Gasik]

I have to agree with you there. To be a little hyperbolic, we really just need 2: Constitution, and "Your Primary Attribute", which you could fluff however you want.

More soberly, different attributes affect skills and saving throws and maybe a few other things. But in combat (which is by far the most mechanically significant part of the game) Dex helps (sometimes) with AC and Initiative, and otherwise all that matters is Con and Primary. That bugs me about 5e.

However, while I agree with you here, "differentiating characters with attributes" and "differentiating races with attributes" are, in my mind, two entirely different topics. If we assume that 5e does a poor job differentiating characters with attributes in general, it follows that they do a poor job differentiating races as well.

We could always go back to 4e design, where you can use certain ability scores almost interchangeably, and it was possible to use any ability score to determine your ability to attack with weapons.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If I wanted to play a game where the writers cared about balance, I've go play 4th Edition!

All I need is evocitive text to inspire me. I'll just use DM judgement and commication skills to solve those pesky gameplay issues.

 

[Minigiant]

I suppose the fear that racial abilities are going to get the axe next is valid. I personally don't think that's ever going to happen, but if that's the worry then, yeah

Nah..

In 6e, we will get + INT to AC and iniitative, WIS to hit, and Cha to damage first as base game options in 6e.

I don't think we will get an ultra-simple edition again. It's the most complained about aspect of 5e.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We could always go back to 4e design, where you can use certain ability scores almost interchangeably, and it was possible to use any ability score to determine your ability to attack with weapons.

We could but we shouldn't. Because again, why even have different abilities at that point?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

However, while I agree with you here, "differentiating characters with attributes" and "differentiating races with attributes" are, in my mind, two entirely different topics. If we assume that 5e does a poor job differentiating characters with attributes in general, it follows that they do a poor job differentiating races as well.

Yes, these things are part of the same underlying issue. Even completely aside the races issue it sucks that every character of given class ends up with basically the same main score (and often very similar other scores as well.) There should be several valid and effective ways to arrange your ability scores, and not all of them should require maxing your main score. And if that was the case, then the species affecting the ability scores would be a balance problem either.

 

[Maxperson]

Nah..

In 6e, we will get + INT to AC and iniitative, WIS to hit, and Cha to damage first as base game options in 6e.

I don't think we will get an ultra-simple edition again. It's the most complained about aspect of 5e.

It's also one of the most praised aspects. I have 4 players. Two say it's too simple and want it expanded or to go back to 3e. Two love the simplicity and praise it whenever the rest of us(I side with the first two) want to make things more complex.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We could but we shouldn't. Because again, why even have different abilities at that point?

the idea IS simple... you can resist mindcontrol with force of personality or will power, you can resist poison with yout health or your body mass, now I admit dex/int has the most stretch but 'out thinking the fireball' isn't really that much of a stress.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, these things are part of the same underlying issue. Even completely aside the races issue it sucks that every character of given class ends up with basically the same main score (and often very similar other scores as well.) There should be several valid and effective ways to arrange your ability scores, and not all of them should require maxing your main score. And if that was the case, then the species affecting the ability scores would be a balance problem either.

and again, if a fighter can use Wisdom and Charisma as much or more then Strength and Constitution it allows for those choices...