NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8183536" data-attributes="member: 6802951">As long as there are roughly equal numbers of people shouting Tasha's "Went too far!" as those complaining it "Didn't go far enough!", I reckon they did about right. If the realistic way of modelling the impact of weighing 160lbs instead of weighing 140lbs would be with a +4 Str bonus, what bonus would you use to model in game mechanics the impact of weighing 600lbs instead of weighing 30lbs?I have to say: I believe this to be generally false.Outside of outright balance issues, when you make a non-minmaxed choice, you are always "choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, in order to get something else you want." This holds true whether picking a non-optimal feat, or a non-optimal race.Characterising one choice as giving up some mechanical combat effectiveness for something else you value a little more and the other as giving up some mechanical combat effectiveness for nothing is neither accurate nor honest.When you choose to pick a race that does not give you a +2 bonus to Strength, you are choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, but presumably you are getting something else you want: an equivalent bonus or ability elsewhere. Just like choosing between the GWM and Actor feats.Yeah. Still not a fan of the "If you want to be an effective person, you need X" sentiment. Whether X is a specific qualification, ability bonus, or BMI score.The changes made in Tasha's and continued in the UA have not changed the fact that you cannot do this. They have only allowed you to be a little less mechanically incompetent at it. Even a <s>'roid-crazed chimpanzee on bad acid</s> halfling is still getting disadvantage on attacks with a bigass hammer.</blockquote>

Verification