D&D 5E Is Tasha's More or Less The Universal Standard?

[doctorbadwolf]

In my group we have one player who always has to "beat" the system, or "win" DND. Always optimized, moans when he doesn't get the magic item, builds combos to avoid ever taking damage, tries to out damage everyone, complains when his HP rolls are low, etc. Its an attitude that exists, but in our case comes from a long history (over 40 years) of playing. He's always been that way. Everything is a competition.

I'm playing a fighter in a Basic campaign right now, and my highest stat is a 12 (as a Fighter, 3d6 six times, assign). I'm solidly keeping pace with the Dwarves and Elf (all with stats providing bonuses). I put my second highest stat in Cha to get better morale and follower buffs, as I intend to hire my way through the campaign. I'm having a blast.

We used all of Tasha's and Xanathar's in our two campaigns over the last three years. Tasha's options definitely pushed some combos and multi classes into absurd territory. In our second campaign those combos caused the game to come to an abrupt end (I was DMing). IF we ever go back to 5e (which is a big IF in our group), then I expect there will be some more curating of what goes into the campaign. But who knows what WOTC will drop into 5.5, and the things they label "optional" might end up becoming default as well.

I’d love to know what official content made the game end. I’ve played with optimizers, and am fairly inclined that way myself, and I genuinely cannot imagine anything RAW that would particularly worry me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We used all of Tasha's and Xanathar's in our two campaigns over the last three years. Tasha's options definitely pushed some combos and multi classes into absurd territory. In our second campaign those combos caused the game to come to an abrupt end (I was DMing). IF we ever go back to 5e (which is a big IF in our group), then I expect there will be some more curating of what goes into the campaign. But who knows what WOTC will drop into 5.5, and the things they label "optional" might end up becoming default as well.

I'm curious - could you expand on what those combinations were please and why one broke the game?

 

[James Gasik]

In my group we have one player who always has to "beat" the system, or "win" DND. Always optimized, moans when he doesn't get the magic item, builds combos to avoid ever taking damage, tries to out damage everyone, complains when his HP rolls are low, etc. Its an attitude that exists, but in our case comes from a long history (over 40 years) of playing. He's always been that way. Everything is a competition.

I'm playing a fighter in a Basic campaign right now, and my highest stat is a 12 (as a Fighter, 3d6 six times, assign). I'm solidly keeping pace with the Dwarves and Elf (all with stats providing bonuses). I put my second highest stat in Cha to get better morale and follower buffs, as I intend to hire my way through the campaign. I'm having a blast.

We used all of Tasha's and Xanathar's in our two campaigns over the last three years. Tasha's options definitely pushed some combos and multi classes into absurd territory. In our second campaign those combos caused the game to come to an abrupt end (I was DMing). IF we ever go back to 5e (which is a big IF in our group), then I expect there will be some more curating of what goes into the campaign. But who knows what WOTC will drop into 5.5, and the things they label "optional" might end up becoming default as well.

To be fair, in Basic and AD&D, most characters don't have bonuses, and you need really high numbers to modify a roll by more than 5%. Those versions of the game made big numbers less important overall (at least until we get to the lightning bonus round of exceptional Strength).

 

[Parmandur]

Fine. I was only counting incoming saves and didn't separate out the outgoing saves. I'll give wizards that one(though I personally don't believe it) and now it's 5 to 2 for quality in favor of dex. Int is still way behind.

Outgoing Inyellihence saves by Wizards are worth a lot. Quality, not quantity.

 

[Cruentus]

I'm curious - could you expand on what those combinations were please and why one broke the game?

I don't want to derail the thread, but for you and @doctorbadwolf and any others:

Its not so much that the game "broke", per se (probably a bit overdramatic on my part). It was more a combination of multiple small things:
1) Pacing: I wasn't running a 6-8 encounter day, the party was able to "nova" just about every BBEG, and most enemies, unless super deadly (which then I had to walk back from TPKs) were cakewalks.
2) Characters:
Thief/Warlock multi (I understand multi is usually suboptimal), but the combination of thief subclass (Swashbuckler) movement, sneak attack, plus Warlock Chain Pact, Imp (fly, invisibility, ability to see in darkness), Genie Patron (ring to hop into to escape combat and invisible flying homunculus flies away with it) alongside devilsight and darkness, plus Eldritch Blast spam.
Evoker, which was pretty basic, but the ability to throw AOEs into any situation and avoid other players while hanging out in the back, plus spammed cantrips for damage was powerful.
Arcane Archer (not super helpful, but the occasional grasping arrow and tracking arrow were situationally good),
Cleric (standard - spiritual hammer, sacred flame, spirit guardians, healing word) and
Cleric/sorcerer (Twilight Cleric, plus sorcerer which wasn't that noticeable, but twilight was great).

It was a huge range of abilities, even without any kind of front line fighter, that could spam cantrips and not use resources against low level threats, and could nuke 12+ level NPC casters and other big monsters in one to two rounds. And that was with utilizing spellcasters with hold person, and attempts at counterspell, yugoloths when the campaign area dictated it, mixed groups of smaller and tougher., etc.

It was a "sandbox" where the party was following various leads/going on adventures, so they could be in areas that were weaker than themselves, or tougher, but we ended up toward the end not bothering to fight the lesser enemies when they appeared because "don't waste good spells on these guys, just use cantrips" was the refrain. And I was having to reach beyond CR12+, way beyond, to threaten them, which resulted in TPKs (razor line for us in that department).

And in trying to utilize environment to change things up worked to an extent, but spammable light (not to mention Darkvision, Twilight ability to share 300' darkvision, devil sight, etc.) all removed environmental impacts (and I am aware of the disadvantage to Perception checks around Darkvision, etc.), easy ability to create food, Leomund's Hut, etc. all made it feel like I was wrestling against the system, rather than playing the game and it was more and more difficult to keep things interesting.

Happy to discuss via messages so as to not clog up the thread.

 

[Maxperson]

Outgoing Inyellihence saves by Wizards are worth a lot. Quality, not quantity.

You are ignoring all the other quality I talked about and mislabeling it only quantity. The truth is, it's a dex has a superior quantity of quality. Nothing I mentioned in that list was not quality over int, except the 1 category int edged out dex in, and your outgoing saves. Dex has superior quality.

 

[Parmandur]

You are ignoring all the other quality I talked about and mislabeling it only quantity. The truth is, it's a dex has a superior quantity of quality. Nothing I mentioned in that list was not quality over int, except the 1 category int edged out dex in, and your outgoing saves. Dex has superior quality.

You enumerated a quantity of factors, yes, but a quantity of small factors isn't necessarily "better" than a few major factors. Quantitative and qualitative are not the same thing.

 

[Maxperson]

You enumerated a quantity of factors, yes

I enumerated many great qualities of dex where int failed to provide anything close to that quality. Just because there were a lot of them doesn't make it quantity over quality. It just means dex has that much more quality than int.

but a quantity of small factors isn't necessarily "better" than a few major factors.

The small factors were provided by int, not dex in my comparison. I provided no small factors for dex.

 

[Irlo]

I enumerated many great qualities of dex where int failed to provide anything close to that quality. Just because there were a lot of them doesn't make it quantity over quality. It just means dex has that much more quality than int.

The small factors were provided by int, not dex in my comparison. I provided no small factors for dex.

It depends, though, doesn’t it?

DEX AC bonus is a small factor if you have medium armor proficiency (and a non-factor in heavy armor). Ranged and finesse attack and damage modifier are large factors … IF you use ranged and finesse weapons. If you’re slinging spells, it doesn’t matter at all. Initiative modifiers are overrated, IMO.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It depends, though, doesn’t it?

DEX AC bonus is a small factor if you have medium armor proficiency (and a non-factor in heavy armor). Ranged and finesse attack and damage modifier are large factors … IF you use ranged and finesse weapons. If you’re slinging spells, it doesn’t matter at all. Initiative modifiers are overrated, IMO.

if you are not setting DCs or attacking with INT, it is pretty much a dump stat. If you aren't attacking or setting DCs with Dex you still have the most common save, the AC (unless you are in heavy armor) and initiative.

 

[Irlo]

if you are not setting DCs or attacking with INT, it is pretty much a dump stat. If you aren't attacking or setting DCs with Dex you still have the most common save, the AC (unless you are in heavy armor) and initiative.

I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m just saying that DEX is not innately superior to INT, because it depends on the character using it, and that all of the factors cited in Max’s analysis are not large factors. For some, they don’t matter at all.

I will also note that a party of adventurers will suffer if everyone dumps INT.

 

[Maxperson]

if you are not setting DCs or attacking with INT, it is pretty much a dump stat. If you aren't attacking or setting DCs with Dex you still have the most common save, the AC (unless you are in heavy armor) and initiative.

And one of the three most commonly used skills. Stealth. Oh, and dex is used a great deal to jimmy open locks

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m just saying that DEX is not innately superior to INT, because it depends on the character using it, and that all of the factors cited in Max’s analysis are not large factors. For some, they don’t matter at all.

I will also note that a party of adventurers will suffer if everyone dumps INT.

yes and no...
first, as long as you have 1 player have a +1 int and train in the skills you need it doesn't matter, and an 10 int rogue with expertise in investigation is better then most 18 int trained characters by the end game.

second it just show that a wizard or artificer (unless armor) who has the most use of Int don't have heavy armor prof so they need Dex for AC, and casters in general are really good when going first.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m not suggesting otherwise. I’m just saying that DEX is not innately superior to INT, because it depends on the character using it, and that all of the factors cited in Max’s analysis are not large factors. For some, they don’t matter at all.

Dex is innately superior to int, because it's universally very useful to all PCs. Int is not.

I will also note that a party of adventurers will suffer if everyone dumps INT.

Yes, but have one or two that don't and you are fine. Have one or two that dump dex and you are burning through resources at a much faster rate healing them and getting them out of pits.

 

[Parmandur]

It depends, though, doesn’t it?

DEX AC bonus is a small factor if you have medium armor proficiency (and a non-factor in heavy armor). Ranged and finesse attack and damage modifier are large factors … IF you use ranged and finesse weapons. If you’re slinging spells, it doesn’t matter at all. Initiative modifiers are overrated, IMO.

Exactly so! The qualitative value is subjective to a character build, not objective. Initiative can occasionally be decisive, for big fights at the end of an Adventuring day. But the roll js usually more important than the modifer anyways.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

Int skills can definitely be huge, my first game had us rolling arcana, religion and history all the time to identify monsters, items, and enemy factions. Dex skills by comparison didn't matter much, only Stealth was really used, and it barely mattered since we had Pass Without Trace when it got really important.

 

[Irlo]

Dex is innately superior to int, because it's universally very useful to all PCs. Int is not.

Yes, but have one or two that don't and you are fine. Have one or two that dump dex and you are burning through resources at a much faster rate healing them and getting them out of pits.

No, it’s not universally very useful to all PCs.

I wouldn’t advocate dumping DEX, and I wouldn’t advocate always maximizing it. One can have a moderate DEX score and be just fine. Using ASIs to bump DEX is not an objectively better choice. You’ve made the case persuasively elsewhere that those extra +1s don’t matter much.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it’s not universally very useful to all PCs.

Name one PC class that doesn't find better initiative initiative, better AC and/or avoiding tons of damage from successful reflex saves useful.

I wouldn’t advocate dumping DEX, and I wouldn’t advocate always maximizing it. One can have a moderate DEX score and be just fine. Using ASIs to bump DEX is not an objectively better choice. You’ve made the case persuasively elsewhere that those extra +1s don’t matter much.

You don't need to maximize it for it to be universally useful. There is no PC class that wouldn't benefit from better initiative, saves and AC. There are classes that don't see the same benefit from int.

 

[Irlo]

Name one PC class that doesn't find better initiative initiative, better AC and/or avoiding tons of damage from successful reflex saves useful.

I didn't say they weren't useful. I said they weren't universally very useful, which was your claim.

Sure, it's better to have a higher initiative modifier than a lower one. That doesn't mean that it's better to have a higher initiative than it is to have a higher INT-based spell attack roll.

I played a dwarf battlemaster for four levels, ending in an untimely death at the horns of a minotaur. DEX was my dump stat, because I was leaning in to the archetype. I fired a crossbow a several times over those four levels, and I hit a few times. Mostly I fought melee or used thrown weapons. Frankly, I didn't want to take the time to unequip my shield. I never, ever fell into a pit. DEX would not have helped my AC. I had enough hit points to survive any failed reflex saves -- though I can't remember any particular instances in which I failed the save. Low initiative was not a big deal.

I DMed for a high DEX wizard running from level 1 to 11. She succeeded in most of her DEX saves, and she still managed to be knocked out of the fight by area of effect spells that did enough damage, even on a save, to drop her. Several times. Nearly every time that I called for a DEX save. That saving throw modifier just wasn't much benefit to her.

,You don't need to maximize it for it to be universally useful. There is no PC class that wouldn't benefit from better initiative, saves and AC. There are classes that don't see the same benefit from int.

Well, I have said (at least twice, in this thread, in conversation with you, I believe) that it's often more advantageous to have moderately high scores in multiple abilities than to have one high and one low.

In threads like this, it's easy to lose the context of the conversation. I admit I might have lost that context. But, for clarity, here's the context in which I'm making my comments:

* We're talking about the relative value of racial ASIs in different ability scores and how floating ASIs in TCoE might affect balance. So, when I say that DEX is not objectively better than INT (or any other stat), I mean, specifically, that a racial DEX ASI is not inherently better than one in INT. It depends on character and the way that character is played. I also mean that it is not universally the case that it's better to have a higher DEX than INT.

* You made a list of the ways in which DEX was better than INT, and you stated that none of the advantages that you enumerated were small factors. I said, and I maintain, that for some characters, some of those advantages are small, and some of them are non-factors all together. You simply over-stated your case.

 

[ECMO3]

yes and no...
first, as long as you have 1 player have a +1 int and train in the skills you need it doesn't matter, and an 10 int rogue with expertise in investigation is better then most 18 int trained characters by the end game.

If you only have one character good at investigation, your party as a whole will fail investigation checks more than if you have multiple characters with a high score and multiple reasonable chances at success. I think few Rogues are going to take investigation expertise when stealth, perception and athletics are available and not all parties have an artificer or wizard that are going to prioritize intelligence.

I am playing in a party with 3 players right now. We have a Druid with an 8 intelligence, a Fighter with a 9 intelligence and a Sorcerer-Warlock with a 13 intelligence and investigation proficiency and we are pretty gimped with no one good at the skill and only one player decent.