Does Tashas prove some races are just better than others?

[Schwann145]

Having one of those late night thoughts.
There's no way to get two different +2 adjustments with the Tashas variant rules. Or a +2 and two +1s.
You could not recreate a Mountain Dwarf or a Half-elf.

Or did I miss something?

[Greywander]

ASIs aren't everything, as clearly evidenced by the fact that not everyone is playing a mountain dwarf or half-elf. Your other racial traits matter.

Some races do seem to be stronger, but not universally so. Yuan-tis have a pretty powerful package, between their Magic Resistance, poison immunity, and innate spells, but a number of other races just work better for specific builds. It depends what you're trying to do with that character, and that might lead to taking a race that is "weaker" because they have a vital racial trait that is necessary to make your build function.

[Lycurgon]

Having one of those late night thoughts.
There's no way to get two different +2 adjustments with the Tashas variant rules. Or a +2 and two +1s.
You could not recreate a Mountain Dwarf or a Half-elf.

Or did I miss something?
I am not sure if I understand what you mean. You can't recreate any race without using that race.
Only a Mountain Dwarf can have +2/+2. That is still the case with Tasha's optional rules. You can't recreate that with anything but a Mountain Dwarf.

But you also can't recreate a Halfling without using the Halfling race. You can have another race with lucky or Halfling nimbleness without playing a halfling, whether you use Tasha's optional rules or not.

All races/lineages have differing traits and non-standard ability bonuses are just part of that. Kobold only have +2. Humans have either +1 x6 or (Varient) +1 x2. These are just part of the package that make up each race. It does make them better or worse on their own, you have to assess the entire race/Lineage not just look at ability scores.

[LudicSavant]

ASIs aren't everything, as clearly evidenced by the fact that not everyone is playing a mountain dwarf or half-elf. Your other racial traits matter. This. Things like VHumans, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Shifters, Yuan-Ti, Dragonmarked races, Eladrin, Shadar-Kai, Tabaxi, Aasimar, and so on and so forth are top tier choices right alongside Half-Elves and Mountain Dwarves.

Some races are definitely better than others, but this was true well before Tasha's. If anything I'd say there's a wider variety of competitive race/class choices now than there were pre-Tasha's. Heck, someone might even actually play a Dragonborn (since Ravenite Dragonborn can now be built Dexy and give an off-turn ranged sneak attack to a Rogue).

[Dork_Forge]

Tasha's raised the floor of races, but it also just reinforced some race's superior standing whilst actively detracting from Human's niche.

Mountain Dwarf now provides excellent stats for most bbuild considerations on top of a solid portfolio of racial traits.

Same thing with Half Elf (especially with the list of available variants).

[Lycurgon]

Heck, someone might even actually play a Dragonborn (since Ravenite Dragonborn can now be built Dexy and give an off-turn ranged sneak attack to a Rogue).

Dragonborn have been a popular choice before any varient rules were introduced. They were number 3 most popular race for characters on DnD beyond before Tasha's came out.
It may not be a popular race for optimisation discussions on forums but the general populace of D&D players don't always care about optimisation. And Dragonborn have always be high in cool factor.

[stoutstien]

Dragonborn have been a popular choice before any varient rules were introduced. They were number 3 most popular race for characters on DnD beyond before Tasha's came out.
It may not be a popular race for optimisation discussions on forums but the general populace of D&D players don't always care about optimisation. And Dragonborn have always be high in cool factor.

Most of the characters on beyond don't ever see actually play. Combined with the fact that few user pay for access to material past the basic rule and the few freebies they tossed in.
I think there 7-8 races available for free and dragon born are the first one without flight so for quick reference builds it is the default option.

Not to say they are unpopular. They have a respectable showing at my tables due to thier strongish flavor.

[Stangler]

Tasha's makes mountain dwarf and half elf more competitive with V human but V human is still the best defined race early game with Half elf being the best late. The races with some sort of magic resistance are also situationally better. Bugbear reach is also situationally really really good.

The custom lineage is better than V human.

The bottom line is that 5e has never had balanced race choices in large part because feats are not balanced. They are obviously moving towards a +2, +1, +Other bonus structure for designing races which should be much easier to balance while providing all the flexibility that they want in their system.

[OldTrees1]

Having one of those late night thoughts.
There's no way to get two different +2 adjustments with the Tashas variant rules. Or a +2 and two +1s.
You could not recreate a Mountain Dwarf or a Half-elf.

Or did I miss something?

It is nearly impossible to perfectly balance incomparables. This results in Game Designers either avoiding incomparable features, or tolerating some amount of power variation as a game artifact. Players understand this and thus accept that some amount of power variation is a game artifact rather than representative of the in game fiction.

The +2/+1 species have incomparable features which means it is still hard to estimate, much less prove, what the power variation looks like. Is Yuan Ti better than Mountain Dwarf?, sometimes it is.

[Willie the Duck]

Having one of those late night thoughts.
There's no way to get two different +2 adjustments with the Tashas variant rules. Or a +2 and two +1s.
You could not recreate a Mountain Dwarf or a Half-elf.

Or did I miss something?

I think the rest of us missed how this somehow proves some races are better than others. Now, clearly some races are better than others (in many-to-most circumstances), and Tashas adds a lot more knobs and levers and gears to the complex interaction of options.

[loki_ragnarock]

Having one of those late night thoughts.
There's no way to get two different +2 adjustments with the Tashas variant rules. Or a +2 and two +1s.
You could not recreate a Mountain Dwarf or a Half-elf.

Or did I miss something?

It does prove that some races are just better than others, but it ain't about the ASIs in isolation. Now Yuan-ti are pretty much the best forever, in every role, rather than being the best in several and merely interesting in others. Now Mountain Dwarf wizards are absurdly advantaged by their myriad racial proficiencies rather than facing a trade off.

It's a pretty garbage implementation all around.

[KorvinStarmast]

I thought it was universally agreed that Variant Human was the best race? I guess Custom Lineage takes the throne now. That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there.

It is nearly impossible to perfectly balance incomparables. I agree, nicely put. A high elf Rogue/Thief gets a wizard cantrip: Mage Hand, Chill Touch, Firebolt, what have you. How good that is will vary with the campaign.

For a Rogue/Thief, a mage hand (even if it isn't the AT mage hand) is still a very nice addition to the kit.

[Theodoxus]

Even without Tasha's, it's pretty easy to gauge how effective a racial package is.

Just remove the ASIs. Ask yourself, what race would you play if racial ASIs didn't exist?

Half-Orcs are still great Barbarians, since all their abilities are additive rather than duplicative.
Halflings are amazing if the DM is running a game with critical fumbles.
MDwarves are good for anyone needing armor proficiency.
HDwarves are good for anyone wanting an few more hit points and want to tank strength while still wearing heavy armor.
Half-Elves are decent for skill builds.
etc. etc.

With Tasha's, yes, it becomes a lot more complex, as you can swap around proficiencies as well, so elves and dwarves gain appeal for that alone (outside of their already good abilities).

Also, if a DM is cool with Tasha's, they're generally good with Volo's and possibly even the Plane Shift / M:tG books which opens up a lot of new race options. I know Yorren has expressed exasperation when thinking about updating his Cleric guidebook with Tasha's floating ASI. Reorganizing races strictly based on non-ASI attributes would be a pain.

[quindraco]

Having one of those late night thoughts.
There's no way to get two different +2 adjustments with the Tashas variant rules. Or a +2 and two +1s.
You could not recreate a Mountain Dwarf or a Half-elf.

Or did I miss something?

They're top notch, but they don't sit the throne alone. List below are not in sorted order.

Post-Tasha's throne:
Mountain Dwarves: 4 stat points
Half-Elves: 4 stat points, Elven Accuracy legal
Winged Tieflings: Flight
Elves (Eladrin): Teleport

Subthrone:
Aarakocra: Worse than winged tieflings, but flight is flight.
Tortle: You can abandon Dexterity, enabling certain builds not buildable with any other race.
Warforged/Simic Hybrid: +1 AC is a big ****ing deal.
Yuan-Ti: Magic Resistance is a big ****ing deal.
Dragonmarked races and Vedalken: +1d4 to a skillcheck can be gamebreakingly good. Dragonmarked only: racial spell access can enable whole new builds, like Tortles can.

I'm not aware of any races that can compete with the above outside of Planeshift (whose races I've never bothered studying) and UA (owlfolk and fairies are amazeballs and sure to be nerfed, and the ability of rabbitfolk to jump in mid-air is sure to be nerfed as well).

[Ettina]

Yuan-Ti: Magic Resistance is a big ****ing deal.

Is it? It's awesome against spellcasters, but most campaigns have relatively few spellcaster enemies, and it's not something you can readily build around to abuse.

I actually find the poison immunity comes up more often for yuan-ti in play than magic resistance. Especially when players decide to build around poisoning yourself and enemies, such as grappling inside a cloudkill.

[Damon_Tor]

ASIs aren't everything, as clearly evidenced by the fact that not everyone is playing a mountain dwarf or half-elf. Your other racial traits matter.

Right. You also want a race with a bunch of proficiencies. Of course both Mountain Dwarves and Half Elves have those as well, so...

[Dork_Forge]

Right. You also want a race with a much of proficiencies. Of course both Mountain Dwarves and Half Elves have those as well, so...

Exactly, the Tasha's optional rules made races with larger than normal ASIs more broadly powerful rather than narrowly potent, and enhances other things that you may not have cared about before (like MD armor prof if you're playing a character that gets it anyway, but now it's just a floating prof...).

As a side tangent, ASIs aren't everything, but the knock on effect of freeing up class based ASIs is potent unto itself.

[OldTrees1]

That's what I hear all the time from this forum and on the internet at large :smallconfused:? If I google "dnd 5e best race" variant human shows up a lot on #1 quite a lot too.

I think: "Variant Human is not 5E's best race. Probably closer to 3rd. However it is generally applicable and gives a lot of customization options, so it is quite popular."

Therefore it is not universally accepted as 5E's best race. Hence KorvinStarmast's comments about "broad brush" alluding to your generalization.

[nathanv]

The replies here are, "Mountain dwarves aren't the best, here are several other good races, that depending on play style are better or near." That's absolutely true.

Maybe the original post ended up suggesting too much with its examples. But I feel like it was saying more than that. There are races that are made clearly inferior by the optional rules introduced by Tasha's. That kind of sucks, if you're like most players, who want to strike a balance between vision and effectiveness, because it often means that you'd be better off playing a Mountain Dwarf wizard. Or a yuan-ti wizard-- it doesn't really matter.

And it seems to me like enabling players to have both a vision *and* effectiveness was part of the reason for the optional rules anyways. So that if you really wanted to play a dwarf wizard, you could do it without feeling like you were hobbling yourself.

So did that work? Well, not really. Now, you just have different people feeling like they're hobbling themselves by the constraints introduced by their vision.

What might have been a better technique? Well, for next edition, I think that they might consider looking into distinguishing between races much more on the basis of racial feats. (They might as well just stop pretending that feats and multiclassing are optional rules.) But the reality is, *nothing* will really work, because people will always completely optimize any system. The smaller you make the difference between the most optimal and least optimal, the larger that people will *feel* that difference. Imagine if the rules to this game were, "Clerics do d100 damage per turn. Barbarians do d100 per turn. They reroll 100s." The only way to equalize all races is to trivialize all races, and nobody wants that either.

Note that none of this really does anything to fix any kind of racism, which I've frequently seen introduced as the presumed reason behind these changes. If dwarves are stupider than average with fixed stats, they're smarter than average with variable stats. Even if elves get their intelligence superiority from elven accuracy, their intelligence is still greater.

[MaxWilson]

Is it? It's awesome against spellcasters, but most campaigns have relatively few spellcaster enemies, and it's not something you can readily build around to abuse.

I actually find the poison immunity comes up more often for yuan-ti in play than magic resistance. Especially when players decide to build around poisoning yourself and enemies, such as grappling inside a cloudkill.

Yuan-ti magic resistance, unlike Ancients Paladin or Abjuror abilities, is not restricted to spells. It works against anything magical, e.g. Medusa petrification, Illithid Mind Blast, Beholder eye beams. It is indeed very, very nice. Its biggest downside is that it's purely reactive, so you can't proactively leverage it in every single fight the way you can e.g. Nimble Escape or racial Crossbow Expert. But in a deadly high-magic campaign it could be an excellent choice.

[XmonkTad]

And it seems to me like enabling players to have both a vision *and* effectiveness was part of the reason for the optional rules anyways. So that if you really wanted to play a dwarf wizard, you could do it without feeling like you were hobbling yourself.

So did that work? Well, not really. Now, you just have different people feeling like they're hobbling themselves by the constraints introduced by their vision.

This. If the question is does Tasha's prove that some races are better than others: no. Some races were already better than others. IMO, Tasha's has helped level the field a bit and made more things more viable. My go-to example of this is the Fire Genasi Barbarian. It is flavorful, but prior to Tasha's it was intolerably unoptimized. A +1 Int race for a barbarian is the kind of choice that gets you dirty looks at my table. Now it actually works pretty well!

But yes, there are now other tradeoffs, and when it comes to optimizing over additional ASI or (floating) proficiencies there are some winners and some losers. I personally feel like my horizons have been expanded by Tasha's.

"Custom Lineage" in particular is just a whole new world worth of opportunities for optimization for me. A Grippli with the poisoner feat, a Shadow Touched Necromancer that actually gets inflict wounds, there is just so much! I'm almost certainly going to play a custom lineage in every game that allows it from now on unless there is some very specific racial ability (like trance, or a CON based attack) that I'm looking for.

[Greywander]

Another example of how the on-paper analysis doesn't tell the whole story is with the variant human and half-elf. Prior to Tasha's, half-elf was, on paper, superior to variant human, assuming you planned to get a +2 to CHA with one of your ASIs at some point. After Tasha's, half-elf is strictly superior to variant human, since you can put that +2 anywhere. If, at 4th level, you take a feat with the half-elf and an ASI with the variant human, they should end up in an identical position, except that the half-elf has fey ancestry, darkvision, and an extra skill, not insignificant upgrades.

And yet, variant human (and custom lineage) continue to be very popular, perhaps moreso than half-elf. Why is this? In theory, half-elf should be strictly better. Well, there's a couple of reasons for this. First, this doesn't take into account the value of getting a feat at 1st level. Some feats, like HAM, PAM, CBE, or Inspiring Leader can make a huge difference at 1st level. Second is that the specific distribution of stat points can matter more than the total number of stat points. For example, a custom lineage can start with a 17 and a feat, whereas the half-elf only starts with a 17, no feat. If you're playing a SAD character, a custom lineage will let you maximize the number of feats you can get. Is it worth giving up darkvision, fey ancetry, a skill, and two +1s in order to get a couple more feats? It may very well be.

[Frogreaver]

Another example of how the on-paper analysis doesn't tell the whole story is with the variant human and half-elf. Prior to Tasha's, half-elf was, on paper, superior to variant human, assuming you planned to get a +2 to CHA with one of your ASIs at some point. After Tasha's, half-elf is strictly superior to variant human, since you can put that +2 anywhere. If, at 4th level, you take a feat with the half-elf and an ASI with the variant human, they should end up in an identical position, except that the half-elf has fey ancestry, darkvision, and an extra skill, not insignificant upgrades.

And yet, variant human (and custom lineage) continue to be very popular, perhaps moreso than half-elf. Why is this? In theory, half-elf should be strictly better. Well, there's a couple of reasons for this. First, this doesn't take into account the value of getting a feat at 1st level. Some feats, like HAM, PAM, CBE, or Inspiring Leader can make a huge difference at 1st level. Second is that the specific distribution of stat points can matter more than the total number of stat points. For example, a custom lineage can start with a 17 and a feat, whereas the half-elf only starts with a 17, no feat. If you're playing a SAD character, a custom lineage will let you maximize the number of feats you can get. Is it worth giving up darkvision, fey ancetry, a skill, and two +1s in order to get a couple more feats? It may very well be.

Yep. It's Because not everyone gauges builds only at extremely high level. Sometimes getting ANY starting feat and then following that up with another feat at level 4 is just better for whatever build a player has in mind until the half elf might get enough ASI's to catch up at a much later level.

A good example is a Barbarian. Another is the CBE + SS Fighter. Both of those builds tend to be much better for most of T1 and T2 as variant human.

[MaxWilson]

Another example of how the on-paper analysis doesn't tell the whole story is with the variant human and half-elf. Prior to Tasha's, half-elf was, on paper, superior to variant human, assuming you planned to get a +2 to CHA with one of your ASIs at some point. After Tasha's, half-elf is strictly superior to variant human, since you can put that +2 anywhere. If, at 4th level, you take a feat with the half-elf and an ASI with the variant human, they should end up in an identical position, except that the half-elf has fey ancestry, darkvision, and an extra skill, not insignificant upgrades.

If the Cha roll was 15, then at 4th level the human that takes an ASI has Cha 18 and a feat, while the half-elf that teaches a feat has Cha 17 and a feat. That's not an identical position, so the half-elf is not strictly better.

They're only functionally identical when you roll an even stat, like Cha 16, so that the human doesn't boost Cha at level 1.

[Valmark]

If the Cha roll was 15, then at 4th level the human that takes an ASI has Cha 18 and a feat, while the half-elf that teaches a feat has Cha 17 and a feat. That's not an identical position, so the half-elf is not strictly better.

They're only functionally identical when you roll an even stat, like Cha 16, so that the human doesn't boost Cha at level 1.

Minor thing: Unless the half-elf feat is an half-feat. In that case they can end up with 18 and a feat and 2 +1s both.

[MaxWilson]

I will add that half-elf, under Tasha's rules, looks a LOT worse than Yuan-ti, whereas under PHB + Volo's rules they are both approximately equally desirable, because that Yuan-ti Cha +2/Int +1 is fairly awkward compared to half-elf Cha +2/Dex +1/Con +1 (or whatever) which tends to free up a feat or two, relative to Yuan-ti.

Some people might view that change as a feature, but to me invalidating previous design constraints to make powerful niche options more powerful looks like a bug.

[OldTrees1]

I will add that half-elf, under Tasha's rules, looks a LOT worse than Yuan-ti, whereas under PHB + Volo's rules they are both approximately equally desirable, because that Yuan-ti Cha +2/Int +1 is fairly awkward compared to half-elf Cha +2/Dex +1/Con +1 (or whatever) which tends to free up a feat or two, relative to Yuan-ti.

Some people might view that change as a feature, but to me invalidating previous design constraints to make powerful niche options more powerful looks like a bug.

Honestly I still prefer the Half Elf but I am a fan of skills. Yuan-ti and Half Elf are still relatively close in my eyes. So some is subjective.

[Eldariel]

I will add that half-elf, under Tasha's rules, looks a LOT worse than Yuan-ti, whereas under PHB + Volo's rules they are both approximately equally desirable, because that Yuan-ti Cha +2/Int +1 is fairly awkward compared to half-elf Cha +2/Dex +1/Con +1 (or whatever) which tends to free up a feat or two, relative to Yuan-ti.

Some people might view that change as a feature, but to me invalidating previous design constraints to make powerful niche options more powerful looks like a bug.

Mmm, I think with PHB Yuan-ti Pureblood just isn't all that high up the totem pole: a set of situational (if frequent and powerful) defense benefits vs. a constant offense benefit (Elven Accuracy) and those awkward stats makes Half-Elf generally favourable in my eyes and I don't think Yuan-ti getting better stat assignments is enough to catch up. With PHB, Yuan-ti is numerically pretty weak on defense outside their immunity and resistances due to not having a boost to either Con or Dex. With Tasha's, they're better but there's still a lot to be said over an extra point in point buy, as well as access to Elven Accuracy (and the proficiencies, skills, cantrip, or whatever heritage you take).

Offense > defense in general, because offense is generally less situational and thus more often applicable meaning defensive option has to be significantly stronger when it does apply to match an offensive booster. The Suggestion 1/day is huge early on but loses importance pretty quickly so I do think that on low levels (like 1-3), Yuan-ti is probably competitive or even stronger even with PHB assignment but as soon Elven Accuracy comes into play (level 4), I think the scales flip.


If I were to list PHB assignment races, I'd probably put:
Vuman
Half-Elf
All flying races

above Yuan-ti

With Tasha's, that doesn't actually change all that much; Custom Lineage, Mountain Dwarf and Yuan-ti get near the top but I still would rate flying races, feat races and high stat+elven accuracy races higher in spite of the huge, irreplicable defensive advantages a Yuan-ti pureblood gets. Flying is obviously king, due to tactical flexibility > everything, and feat races + high stat races generally make better enough whatevers (because they're synergistic bonuses) that I'd say it does outpace the rocksolid, but kinda isolated advantages of the YTPB.

[Willie the Duck]

I think it is going to come down to how often does the PC that might potentially be a Yuan-ti Pureblood run into magic to which they cannot otherwise resist (or if they can but it takes resources, how many resources do they save doing so). I remember when they first came out, I made a YtP paladin and there honestly wasn't that many instances where it was the magic resistance made the difference. Other setups might play out differently.

[Dork_Forge]

For the Yuan-Ti I think the Poison Immunity is a bigger deal to be honest, straight ignoring poison damage trivialises a non insignificant amount of monsters.

If you're looking for a Magic Resistance race then Satyr is generally a better pick imo.

[ff7hero]

For the Yuan-Ti I think the Poison Immunity is a bigger deal to be honest, straight ignoring poison damage trivialises a non insignificant amount of monsters.


Monsters and hazards. I happened to build a Yuan Ti Pureblood for a game that took place in a dungeon flooded with poisonous gas (without metagaming I swear). Every hour the rest of the party was having to make saves to avoid taking some chip damage. That plus the giant spiders we fought (which used poison/poisoned for most of their combat threat) which I was able to tank as a level 5 Sorcerer with 14 AC made the poison(ed) immunity much more valuable than the magic resistance which only came up a couple times at most.

[Damon_Tor]

I think most people understand that the Yuan-Ti is a major outlier in terms of racial balance.

[Dork_Forge]

I think most people understand that the Yuan-Ti is a major outlier in terms of racial balance.

In terms of why it is a strong choice it's an outlier, but outliers like this should have just reinforced why a blanket 'move things where you want' rule was plain crackers from a balance point of view.

[ff7hero]

I think most people understand that the Yuan-Ti is a major outlier in terms of racial balance.

It's not a sole outlier though. I would say Winged Tiefling/Aarokroa (darkvision and better armor choices vs faster flight) are worse offenders in that arena. While Variant Humans/Custom Lineage and Half Elves are solidly on the same level. I'd argue that others like Hill Dwarf (Mountain Dwarf still doesn't thrill me even with Tasha's, but +Level HP never goes out of style) or Half Orc (what do we say to the God of Death?) are also on the same level in a vacuum.

Then if you take that vacuum away, more races start to become competitive. Grung/Minotaur/Simic Hybrid/etc all open up unique styles of play with their natural attacks. Goblin can add a Rogueish feel to any ranged build without a two level dip, and Hobgoblin unlocks Medium+Shields for a single ASI which makes builds like the Iron Wizard possible.

I guess this is just a long winded way of saying I think the balance on 5e Races is ok. Not necessarily perfect, but good enough for the purpose it serves.

[MaxWilson]

Mmm, I think with PHB Yuan-ti Pureblood just isn't all that high up the totem pole: a set of situational (if frequent and powerful) defense benefits vs. a constant offense benefit (Elven Accuracy) and those awkward stats makes Half-Elf generally favourable in my eyes and I don't think Yuan-ti getting better stat assignments is enough to catch up... The Suggestion 1/day is huge early on but loses importance pretty quickly so I do think that on low levels (like 1-3), Yuan-ti is probably competitive or even stronger even with PHB assignment but as soon Elven Accuracy comes into play (level 4), I think the scales flip.

But hold on, Elven Accuracy costs an extra feat and isn't a constant offense benefit, it's situational. (Admittedly advantage via vision manipulation is much easier to get by RAW, but I don't get the sense a lot of DMs actually allow those RAW tricks--I get the impression they soft-veto them without making it an actual house rule. My impression is that Greater Invisibility/Shadow of Moil or Devil's Sight + Darkness is about the level of resource investment required to gain advantage, at most tables, and that costs concentration and possibly a warlock invocation.)

I'm not saying Yuan-ti is at the top of the totem pole relative to all races (Aarakocras, Tabaxi, Goblin, Hobgoblin, custom lineage, etc. can all compete in various ways), but relative to half-elf and under Tasha's rules, I believe it is, which probably boils down to "I disagree about the value of Elven Accuracy, especially in Tier 1-2 but even later on." Tri-vantage has diminishing returns.

Yuan-ti Necromancer X/Cleric 1 or Fighter 1-2 >> Half-elf Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter, because taking EA at level 4 delays SS/CE progression to the point where spells become better before the Fighter can start to shine.

Yuan-ti Paladorlock also >> Half-elf Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter. Better whole-party defense, worse but still good offense, good spells.

Anyway, the point of Magic Resistance isn't to use it in every fight--it's to minimize the chances of dying in the occasional deadly fight vs. Hold Person spam, or beholder disintegration/death/enervation/petrification rays, or Intellect Devourering, or Mind Blasts, or neogi Enslave, etc. What happens in the non-deadly in-between fights isn't as important as whether you survive the tough ones. Obvious YMMV based on campaign style. I have blind spots based on my own DMing style and maybe it's making me overestimate the importance of layered defense in occasional brutally deadly fights.

[Ogre Mage]

All PC races are equal but some PC races are more equal than others. :sabine:

[Eldariel]

But hold on, Elven Accuracy costs an extra feat and isn't a constant offense benefit, it's situational. (Admittedly advantage via vision manipulation is much easier to get by RAW, but I don't get the sense a lot of DMs actually allow those RAW tricks--I get the impression they soft-veto them without making it an actual house rule. My impression is that Greater Invisibility/Shadow of Moil or Devil's Sight + Darkness is about the level of resource investment required to gain advantage, at most tables, and that costs concentration and possibly a warlock invocation.)

I'm not saying Yuan-ti is at the top of the totem pole relative to all races (Aarakocras, Tabaxi, Goblin, Hobgoblin, custom lineage, etc. can all compete in various ways), but relative to half-elf and under Tasha's rules, I believe it is, which probably boils down to "I disagree about the value of Elven Accuracy, especially in Tier 1-2 but even later on." Tri-vantage has diminishing returns.

Yuan-ti Necromancer X/Cleric 1 or Fighter 1-2 >> Half-elf Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter, because taking EA at level 4 delays SS/CE progression to the point where spells become better before the Fighter can start to shine.

Yuan-ti Paladorlock also >> Half-elf Elven Accuracy Sharpshooter. Better whole-party defense, worse but still good offense, good spells.

Anyway, the point of Magic Resistance isn't to use it in every fight--it's to minimize the chances of dying in the occasional deadly fight vs. Hold Person spam, or beholder disintegration/death/enervation/petrification rays, or Intellect Devourering, or Mind Blasts, or neogi Enslave, etc. What happens in the non-deadly in-between fights isn't as important as whether you survive the tough ones. Obvious YMMV based on campaign style. I have blind spots based on my own DMing style and maybe it's making me overestimate the importance of layered defense in occasional brutally deadly fights.

Elven Accuracy is a half-feat, which combined with the +2 ability score increase generally means (on PB at least) that it does amount to ASI + feat though (at the cost of not having similar opportunity to take other half-feats). Still a feat, but at a significantly lesser cost than full feat: EA lets you get to 20 Cha on 8 still. Of course you're right, Magic Resistance is great and indeed, those dangerous saves are big. Paladin specifically vs. AOE CC is huge but on the other hand, EA does have the significant edge of being able to solve those dangerous encounters significantly faster: obviously you want a consistent source of advantage if you go that route (vision manipulation is indeed good and I haven't seen it problematised in melee that often - given the duration of the effects, that should be pretty close to at-will; of course, you have Samurai, Trip-sorts of deals, etc. too but yes, I'd expect that it takes some resource but one you'd be inclined to use anyways so this just gets you more out of the resource).

After all, to take this example, Hexblade Padlock has access to Cha-based attacks meaning it's able to use EA and thus is pretty darn good for smiting down whatever; the more dangerous, the more nova you can go, which can be a significant contributor towards minimising the threat to not only you but the party as well. And it still has the same party-wide save benefit for everyone else: it lacks the personal reroll though, which can be huge but OTOH against encounters without high danger saves but that do have e.g. time limits having the extra offense can be a significant advantage in cutting down on the amount of blasts the party takes. And it still has a fairly good chance of making those saves on the back of being a Paladin: Cha-saves are of course trivial and Wis- and Con-saves are likely quite easy (though of course, there's a significant difference between a 10% fail rate and a 1% but most of the time this won't be relevant except at a huge high-stakes-save encounter rate). This mostly leaves Int-saves as a category where significant help would be needed and where Magic Resistance would kick into high gear: they're dangerous but somewhat rare so I probably would be willing to risk those.

On level 12 (or maybe 15 depending on the exact multiclass), at 20 Cha it's possible to pick up Lucky anyways (which, if the superdangerous saves aren't superfrequent, generally suffices for most rerolling needs). Of course, Yuan-ti can do the same and have three rerolls for saves but given saves are most likely less frequent than attack rolls, the chances of you needing it aren't all that high: after all, it only gains value after you fail a save at advantage with the +5.

[LudicSavant]

The replies here are, "Mountain dwarves aren't the best, here are several other good races, that depending on play style are better or near." That's absolutely true.

Maybe the original post ended up suggesting too much with its examples. But I feel like it was saying more than that. There are races that are made clearly inferior by the optional rules introduced by Tasha's. That kind of sucks, if you're like most players, who want to strike a balance between vision and effectiveness, because it often means that you'd be better off playing a Mountain Dwarf wizard. Or a yuan-ti wizard-- it doesn't really matter.


As one of those players who wants to strike a balance between vision and effectiveness, I'd say the Tasha's rule is definitely a step forward.

"Some races are inferior" is a statement that is true both before and after Tasha's. So 'if you're like most players, who want to strike a balance between vision and effectiveness,' what changed?

What changed is that for any given race/class combination, there are more races on the competitive curve after Tasha's than there were before. Are there still some races below that curve? Yes, absolutely. But it's at least better than it used to be.

Your choices aren't just Mountain Dwarf Wizard or Yuan-Ti Wizard, it's also Goblin Wizard, Hobgoblin Wizard, Warding Dwarf Wizard, Healing Halfling Wizard, Beasthide Shifter Wizard, Tabaxi Wizard, Shadow Elf Wizard, Passage Human Wizard, Shadar-Kai Wizard, Winged Tiefling Wizard, Half-Drow Wizard, Eladrin Wizard, Dhampir Wizard, Aarakocra Wizard, Variant Human Wizard, Custom Lineage Wizard, Tabaxi Wizard, Protector Aasimar Wizard, Changeling Wizard, Githyanki Wizard, Githzerai Wizard, Loxodon Wizard, Simic Hybrid Wizard, Vedalken Wizard, Svirfneblin Wizard (particularly for Abjurers), Swiftstride Shifter, Scribing Gnome Wizard, Sentinel Human Wizard, Warforged Wizard, Kobold Wizard, and Satyr Wizard. For starters.

Healing Halfling makes a Wizard outheal most Clerics and effectively gives you a small bonus to all d20 rolls (via Lucky). Goblin can just bonus action Hide after casting a spell each round. Beasthide Shifter makes you able to just straight up eat more damage than if you were a higher hit die class ("why yes, I would like a +1 AC and 80 extra hit points today, thanks"). Warding Dwarf is basically everything an Abjurer could ever want. Hobgoblin can give you a +5 bonus to any save (or other d20 rolls) 1/short rest (which can potentially be even better than Magic Resistance depending on how many saves you're eating), and puts you within reach of Moderately Armored to boot. Tabaxi makes you mobile and kitey as @#$%. And so on and so forth.

[Ettina]

As one of those players who wants to strike a balance between vision and effectiveness, I'd say the Tasha's rule is definitely a step forward.

"Some races are inferior" is a statement that is true both before and after Tasha's. So 'if you're like most players, who want to strike a balance between vision and effectiveness,' what changed?

What changed is that for any given race/class combination, there are more races on the competitive curve after Tasha's than there were before. Are there still some races below that curve? Yes, absolutely. But it's at least better than it used to be.

I disagree. It removes one of the levers you can use to adjust the power of a race.

5e hadn't been using this lever to its full potential, admittedly, since nearly all pre-Tasha's races have fixed +2 and +1, but the exceptions to that rule affected the power of the race. For example, a flexible bonus is more powerful than a fixed bonus, having a +2 and -2 is weaker than a +2 and +1, Str+ and Int+ is weaker than Str+ and Con+, etc. You could use variations like that to improve race balance - in my homebrew races, I've varied stat bonuses to counterbalance differences in racial features' power. I even have some homebrew races with no stat bonuses whatsoever, because my vision for them involved multiple strong racials and the only way to get their Detect Balance score down to a balanced number was to ditch the stat bonuses.

And increasing every fixed-stat-bonus race's power equally doesn't make the weaker races competitive. It just raises the bar they're falling beneath. The only effect Tasha's rules have on race balance is making the races who already had flexible stat bonuses weaker in comparison because one of the things that made them special has been handed out to everyone else. It hasn't affected the balance between races that are equally affected by Tasha's rules.

[MaxWilson]

What changed is that for any given race/class combination, there are more races on the competitive curve after Tasha's than there were before. Are there still some races below that curve? Yes, absolutely. But it's at least better than it used to be.

I'm not sure if there's more or fewer, but one difference is that now it's pretty much the SAME races for every class. No longer are Aarakocras fantastic monks but bad wizards; now they're fantastic at EVERYTHING, and an all-Aarakocra party has no downside except opportunity cost (not being a different top-tier race like Jorasco halfling).

Some people might view breaking the correlation between race and class as a feature, but for me removing an interesting constraint leads to a bug: the optimal solutions all resemble each other more closely than before. There's less variety and I find it boring.

[Ettina]

I'm not sure if there's more or fewer, but one difference is that now it's pretty much the SAME races for every class. No longer are Aarakocras fantastic monks but bad wizards; now they're fantastic at EVERYTHING, and an all-Aarakocra party has no downside except opportunity cost (not being a different top-tier race like Jorasco halfling).

Some people might view breaking the correlation between race and class as a feature, but for me removing an interesting constraint leads to a bug: the optimal solutions all resemble each other more closely than before. There's less variety and I find it boring.

Good point.

[LudicSavant]

a flexible bonus is more powerful than a fixed bonus

Not quite. A flexible bonus makes you equally as powerful as having the correct fixed bonus for your build.

An Aarakocra wouldn't be any stronger at being a Monk if it had "+Any" instead of "+Wis/+Dex." And the fact that it becomes better at being things that aren't Monks does not actually affect the power level of your Monk.


an all-Aarakocra party has no downside except opportunity cost (not being a different top-tier race like Jorasco halfling).

Did you think this was a problem for VHumans? If not, why is it a problem that you can have a well-rounded all-aarakocra party? Or all-elf party? Or all-dwarf party? Or all-halfling party? Or all-orc party? Or all-drow party? Etc?

[Willie the Duck]

Some people might view breaking the correlation between race and class as a feature, but for me removing an interesting constraint leads to a bug: the optimal solutions all resemble each other more closely than before. There's less variety and I find it boring.

I think that is a primary difference. In a playgroup where everyone always picks the optimal race for a given class/build, this may decreases the variety by making some standouts (Aarakocra, Jorasco halfling) become near-always-choices. In a playgroup where people do not pick the optimal race, but do have a resistance to playing truly sub-optimal choices (for the sake of argument, we'll include starting with <16 starting main stat) it increases the variety because people are now willing to play dwarven wizards and gnomish barbarians.

I've said my piece before on the issue in the past. It's clearly a kludgy changing of course mid-stream, and not how best to implement a game change. However, it benefits the casuals having a better game experience, and I think those are the ones upon which game designers should be focused (the same people who can do optimization and pick apart game balance can also be trusted to do house rules and the like).

[MaxWilson]

Did you think this was a problem for VHumans? If not, why is it a problem that you can have a well-rounded all-aarakocra party? Or all-elf party? Or all-dwarf party? Or all-halfling party? Or all-orc party? Or all-drow party? Etc?

Nope, because there was only one VHuman race, so flexibility and ubiquity WAS their shtick, and furthermore it served to reinforce a convenient trend: humans are ubiquitous in the game world, just like in real life. And even then it was neat that Dexy Sharpshooter humans are different from strong Heavy Armor Master humans, and I encouraged them to have different homelands and cultures, so humanity was more like a diverse collection of mini-races than a homogeneous mass.

It would have been a problem though if vhumans had been some kind of nonhuman race though, which is basically what Tasha's rules created, only worse because the overpowered races can get things stronger than merely a feat.

You could already technically have had an all-dwarf party under PHB rules, even though it was non-optimal. So a one-race party isn't a problem per se any more than a one-class party is. What's different now is that it's the same races showing up again and again in all of the different roles with relatively little variation (rogues still won't be Goblins because of antisynergy). I find the lack of variety boring. Clearly you disagree.

[Segev]

If races were balanced before Tasha's, then Tasha's unbalances them and does make those who didn't use non-synergistic stats to balance out racial traits that are obviously good for a particular class weaker than those that did. Mountain dwarves are now the best blade singers out there, because they can get +2 Dex and +2 Int on top of medium armor proficiency. They're really the best arcane casters out there for that reason, since most arcane casters lack medium armor proficiency and will love being able to max out AC with a 14 in dex paid for with a 12.

My issue with a lot of the arguments for why Tasha's is a good thing stems from the fact that on the one hand, the arguments require claiming that it doesn't break anything to choose any set of racial traits with an optimal set of stats for a given class, and that this opens up "creativity" by allowing everyone to have the same statline for their class, while at the same time claiming that it is so important to have the stats align perfectly with your class that it's punishingly unplayable to lack +2s to your primary stats and racial features that align with classes that the stat mods didn't align with are not overpowered when the stats now align, too.

It seems to require a combination of stat mods not being a balancing factor for other racial traits while also being a huge penalty if they don't align perfectly. And yet, it's somehow NOT punishing for a mountain dwarf to essentially lose multiple racial traits if he plays a fighter.

But Tasha's is here to stay, whether for powergaming purposes or...other ones. They're clearly planning to do away with racial modifiers going forward.

[stoutstien]

Nope, because there was only one VHuman race, so flexibility and ubiquity WAS their shtick, and furthermore it served to reinforce a convenient trend: humans are ubiquitous in the game world, just like in real life. And even then it was neat that Dexy Sharpshooter humans are different from strong Heavy Armor Master humans, and I encouraged them to have different homelands and cultures, so humanity was more like a diverse collection of mini-races.

It would have been a problem though if vhumans had been some kind of nonhuman race though, which is basically what Tasha's rules created, only worse because the OP, ubiquitous races can get things stronger than merely a feat.

You could already technically have had an all-dwarf party under PHB rules, even though it was non-optimal. So a one-race party isn't a problem per se any more than a one-class party is. What's different now is that it's the same races showing up again and again in all of the different roles with relatively little variation (rogues still won't be Goblins because of antisynergy). I find the lack of variety boring. Clearly you disagree.

It's definitely a double edged sword. It both increased flexibility for some groups and single handedly made race options pointless for the group sitting at the next table.

[Dork_Forge]

Nope, because there was only one VHuman race, so flexibility and ubiquity WAS their shtick, and furthermore it served to reinforce a convenient trend: humans are ubiquitous in the game world, just like in real life. And even then it was neat that Dexy Sharpshooter humans are different from strong Heavy Armor Master humans, and I encouraged them to have different homelands and cultures, so humanity was more like a diverse collection of mini-races than a homogeneous mass.

It would have been a problem though if vhumans had been some kind of nonhuman race though, which is basically what Tasha's rules created, only worse because the overpowered races can get things stronger than merely a feat.

You could already technically have had an all-dwarf party under PHB rules, even though it was non-optimal. So a one-race party isn't a problem per se any more than a one-class party is. What's different now is that it's the same races showing up again and again in all of the different roles with relatively little variation (rogues still won't be Goblins because of antisynergy). I find the lack of variety boring. Clearly you disagree.

Thoroughly agree with this, flexibility and versatility were squarely the schtick of Humans in D&D, that's why vanilla gets +1 to everything and the Variant can still put their +1s where they wish. It's why the human half of half-elves was represented by floating +1s whereas the Elven portion was represented by Fey Ancestry.

It used to be interesting to make things 'against the grain' work and be effective, now there's no grain to go against and what were before niche racial abilities become open season.

Had 5e been built from the ground up with this in mind it wouldn't (likely) be a problem, but it clearly goes against original design intent for the first 5/6 years of the game.

[LudicSavant]

Nope, because there was only one VHuman race, so flexibility and ubiquity WAS their shtick, and furthermore it served to reinforce a convenient trend: humans are ubiquitous in the game world, just like in real life. And even then it was neat that Dexy Sharpshooter humans are different from strong Heavy Armor Master humans, and I encouraged them to have different homelands and cultures, so humanity was more like a diverse collection of mini-races than a homogeneous mass.

You know, non-humans have different homelands and cultures rather than being a homogeneous mass, too.


It would have been a problem though if vhumans had been some kind of nonhuman race though

VHumans weren't the only race that were useful for every class. Warforged fit that category too.

[Eldariel]

I'm not sure if there's more or fewer, but one difference is that now it's pretty much the SAME races for every class. No longer are Aarakocras fantastic monks but bad wizards; now they're fantastic at EVERYTHING, and an all-Aarakocra party has no downside except opportunity cost (not being a different top-tier race like Jorasco halfling).

Some people might view breaking the correlation between race and class as a feature, but for me removing an interesting constraint leads to a bug: the optimal solutions all resemble each other more closely than before. There's less variety and I find it boring.

Mhm, ultimately it boils down to:
Tasha's: A larger number of solid options for each given class.
PHB: A larger amount of differences between classes.

Obviously a Johnny (likes quirky interactions, wants to put their own spin on things) in MTG terms is going to prefer PHB, while a Spike (prefers most efficient combinations) is going to prefer the latter. Similarly, someone who just prefers big numbers (MTG Timmy) is probably going to be happier post-Tasha's, but of course these player archetypes are generalisations rather than accurate descriptions (e.g. some Spikes might prefer having fewer options to make it easier to pick the optimal version; simple optimality avoids decision paralysis).

In other words, can't please everyone and it ultimately comes down to why you play/build, how much you play/build, and where your priorities lie.

[MaxWilson]

You know, non-humans have different homelands and cultures rather than being a homogeneous mass, too.

But Aarakocra still resemble other aarakocra more than Sharpshooter humans resemble HAM humans--and real life doesn't have Aarakocra so if they become optimal and ubiquitous at a given table (due to DMing style or ruleset) it creates a more alien and problematic experience than if humans are optimal and ubiquitous. You asked, I answered, and that's the answer.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Nope,
Such a tone of categorical, existential certainty...it reminds me of the McLaughlin Group.🃏


I find the lack of variety boring. Clearly you disagree.

I find this statement perplexing. If one,(and presumably, one's group), believe they have found the solution to the question of "What is the most powerful race", then an optimizer's choice was already limited.

Pre Tasha's a player, for whom optimization was important, was likely not going to make a Kalashtar Psi Knight. Despite the race, subclass combo blending well together, to achieve the sensation of playing a Jedi, the set Bonuses to Wisdom and Charisma, prevented an optimization minded player from selecting the combo.

I know it stopped me, my Psi Warrior is a Vhuman. Post Tasha's Kalashtar, I would probably have gone with the Kalashtar. Despite Kalashtar not being as powerful as some races, it has a distinctive ability in telepathy.

All of the races in Volo's Guide to Monsters are on the powerful side. In my opinion the answer to a player asking the question of "Can I play a Yuan-ti ?" can be be a "No". This answer might be due, entirely, to thematic concerns, and not game balance considerations .

[MaxWilson]

Such a tone of categorical, existential certainty...it reminds me of the McLaughlin Group.🃏

When someone asks you for your opinion on something, "Did you think this was a problem for VHumans? If not, why is it a problem...", a categorical "nope" is 100% appropriate. Nope, I didn't and don't.


I find this statement perplexing. If one,(and presumably, one's group), believe they have found the solution to the question of "What is the most powerful race", then an optimizer's choice was already limited.

I think you're going to have to unpack that argument there because I'm not following it. Yes, choices are constrained, which is what makes the problem interesting--and they're constrained in different ways for different classes (ignoring Tasha's for the moment). Because of how synergies work, a monoclass party is not typically going to be optimal, which means you wind up having different constraints on race for each PC class in the party, as well as the constraints introduced by whatever individual stat rolls you have, so every party is different (even though trends may arise, such as always picking wizards over sorcerers).

That's not the only problem with Tasha's rule (the text in Tasha's is also downright dishonest about the provenance of ability score modifiers, claims that 5E ability score modifiers don't apply to NPCs when the DMG explicitly says the opposite), but it's the one I was talking about, and the one you seem to be arguing with. I don't think you can seriously argue that homogenizing the constraint doesn't increase the homogeneity of the solution space, but you seem to be making some other argument. What does "the optimizer's choice was already limited" mean in this context, and what do you think you're arguing against?

[XmonkTad]

Some people might view breaking the correlation between race and class as a feature, but for me removing an interesting constraint leads to a bug: the optimal solutions all resemble each other more closely than before. There's less variety and I find it boring.

I'm of two minds about this. I do agree that the optimal solutions resemble each other more (ie the all flying party you mentioned). But I feel like the race-class constraint really was just giving you a false choice and creating diversity for the sake of tradition/tropes. It isn't interesting constraint that players "had to" pick a +Int race to play an optimal wizard. Now the interesting trade off comes from incomparable things, like poison immunity vs flying vs sunlight sensitivity vs etc. Flying isn't optimal any more than having medium armor proficiency or water breathing or whatever.

[Segev]

I'm of two minds about this. I do agree that the optimal solutions resemble each other more (ie the all flying party you mentioned). But I feel like the race-class constraint really was just giving you a false choice and creating diversity for the sake of tradition/tropes. It isn't interesting constraint that players "had to" pick a +Int race to play an optimal wizard. Now the interesting trade off comes from incomparable things, like poison immunity vs flying vs sunlight sensitivity vs etc. Flying isn't optimal any more than having medium armor proficiency or water breathing or whatever.

I still contend that the notion that they "had" to pick the +Int race to play a wizard is a false one. Yes, it helps, but no, it doesn't make your wizard unplayable or even particularly weak to be 5% worse at landing spell attacks and save DCs. I won't say it has no impact, but it isn't the concept-ending crisis people make it out to be. Ideally, if you're playing a race that doesn't get +Int, you're playing it for some of its other features, and will be building to make those features useful and prominent, leading to unique and interesting builds that make up for lacking a slight advantage that +Int races get in your class with these other things you're doing.

[MaxWilson]

I'm of two minds about this. I do agree that the optimal solutions resemble each other more (ie the all flying party you mentioned). But I feel like the race-class constraint really was just giving you a false choice and creating diversity for the sake of tradition/tropes. It isn't interesting constraint that players "had to" pick a +Int race to play an optimal wizard. Now the interesting trade off comes from incomparable things, like poison immunity vs flying vs sunlight sensitivity vs etc. Flying isn't optimal any more than having medium armor proficiency or water breathing or whatever.

I mean, I sort of agree--the constraint was never as mechanically powerful as people thought (when I say Aarakocra make "bad wizards", ignoring Tasha's, I mean relatively--in actual play you can play an Aarakocra with Int 14-16 and still have lots of fun), but it still has a real psychological effect which affects the gameplay experience: Aarakocra wizards are rare IME compared to Aarakocra monks and archers.

Some people think that's a bad thing. I think it's a good thing: it makes Aarakocras a fairly nonmagical people, which implies that they're culturally different from e.g. elves. I like that racial difference. Some people hate it. Clearly it's a matter of taste.

My suspicion and tentative observation is that people who like point buy over rolled stats are more likely to like the Tasha's rule, and in fact I tend to view the Tasha's rule as a patch on top of point buy. People who like the chaos and enforced variety of rolled stats, I hypothesize, are less likely to be sympathetic to the Tasha's argument that all races should have equal access to the same stat modifiers, although of course I could be wrong and even if I'm right some people will like both rolled stats and Tasha's, for game-related or non-game-related reasons.

Anyway, I agree with you that it was already a bit of a false choice: dwarves and halflings aren't all that different from each other even with just PHB rules, and the stat modifiers were small. It's why I don't consider 5E to be a very interesting TTRPG although it's a fairly interesting hack-and-slash engine.

[loki_ragnarock]

So... it's about niches in the ecosystem, yeah?

Before, goblins fit a particular niche in the ecosystem. Mountain dwarves fit a particular niche in the ecosystem. Yuan-ti fit into particular niches in the ecosystem. Githyanki fit into particular niches in the ecosystem.

Because they fit into those niches, it left other niches for other race choices. Mountain Dwarves didn't have the tongue required to extract nectar from that particular flower, leaving room for a different pollinator to service it. It meant Mountain Dwarves thrived on the nectar of specific flowers their short tongues could reach, and they bumbled about while other things (maybe humans or aasimar or something) serviced the flowers they'd each evolved to service.

And then, suddenly, a hive of Mountain Dwarves got eff off long tongues. They can pollinate every flower in the ecosystem, filling every niche. Where Mountain Dwarves and Aasimar didn't compete before, they now find themselves in direct competition. And one of them is going to be the superior competitor in this ecosystem, likely driving the other to extinction as the non tongue related adaptations become the selector.

(Except replace Mountain Dwarf with Yuan-ti, and replace Aasimar with Gnome.)

Anywho, you'll see more Mountain Dwarves in more flowers. And that's cool if you were thinking to yourself, "Self, it'd be really cool if that dwarf was in that flower."
But you'll see fewer of the other pollinators. You might find them in flowers you wouldn't expect... but in some cases, like gnomes that only really had a few plants they pollinated, you just won't find them anymore.


That's what Max is saying when he says the lack of variety is boring. More dwarves in more flowers is a *type* of variety, sure, just not the type you'd want to see in a healthy ecosystem.

EDIT:
Ya'll write faster than me, and I'm behind the times.

[LudicSavant]

Mountain dwarves are now the best blade singers out there, because they can get +2 Dex and +2 Int on top of medium armor proficiency.

Mountain Dwarves are not even in the top 10 for post-Tasha's Bladesinger races.

Medium armor even prevents a Bladesinger from using Bladesong, Song of Defense, or Song of Victory.

[Segev]

My suspicion and tentative observation is that people who like point buy over rolled stats are more likely to like the Tasha's rule, and in fact I tend to view the Tasha's rule as a patch on top of point buy. People who like the chaos and enforced variety of rolled stats, I hypothesize, are less likely to be sympathetic to the Tasha's argument that all races should have equal access to the same stat modifiers, although of course I could be wrong and even if I'm right some people will like both rolled stats and Tasha's, for game-related or non-game-related reasons.

A superior patch to this would be to change the racial stat bonuses to racial point-buy bonuses to those stats. Assume that the maximum number of points are going to be put into the stat that gets the +2, then calculate the point difference that the +2 represents. I did this once before, but have forgotten it and I don't remember how I derived what a 17 would cost. But the big problem in point-buy for fixed racial stat mods is that you ARE actually getting fewer stat-buy-points if you don't max out your race's best stat, since going from an 8 to a 10 only costs 2 points, while going from a 15 to a 17 is literally not purchasable.

Oh, right, that's how I did it: it costs 4 points to go from a 13 to a 15, and you literally cannot buy a 16 or a 17. Therefore, a +2 racial bonus can EITHER be a +2 racial bonus to that stat, OR 4 free points to that stat. Similarly, a +1 racial bonus can EITHER be a +1 racial bonus to that stat, OR 2 free points to that stat.

This way, if you're choosing to use your racial bonus stat as a "dump stat," or even as a moderate stat, you're not getting half the build resources out of it you otherwise would.

Yes, you're still unable to get your non-racial-bonus stats above 15 at chargen, but you ARE still getting as many build resources as anybody else who makes a choice that limits them, and will definitely have better-rounded stats than somebody who min/maxed in the most classic sense to pile racial stat mods to a 17.

[MaxWilson]

So... it's about niches in the ecosystem, yeah?

Before, goblins fit a particular niche in the ecosystem. Mountain dwarves fit a particular niche in the ecosystem. Yuan-ti fit into particular niches in the ecosystem. Githyanki fit into particular niches in the ecosystem.

Because they fit into those niches, it left other niches for other race choices. Mountain Dwarves didn't have the tongue required to extract nectar from that particular flower, leaving room for a different pollinator to service it. It meant Mountain Dwarves thrived on the nectar of specific flowers their short tongues could reach, and they bumbled about while other things (maybe humans or aasimar or something) serviced the flowers they'd each evolved to service.

And then, suddenly, a hive of Mountain Dwarves got eff off long tongues. They can pollinate every flower in the ecosystem, filling every niche. Where Mountain Dwarves and Aasimar didn't compete before, they now find themselves in direct competition. And one of them is going to be the superior competitor in this ecosystem, likely driving the other to extinction as the non tongue related adaptations become the selector.

(Except replace Mountain Dwarf with Yuan-ti, and replace Aasimar with Gnome.)

Anywho, you'll see more Mountain Dwarves in more flowers. And that's cool if you were thinking to yourself, "Self, it'd be really cool if that dwarf was in that flower."
But you'll see fewer of the other pollinators. You might find them in flowers you wouldn't expect... but in some cases, like gnomes that only really had a few plants they pollinated, you just won't find them anymore.

That's what Max is saying when he says the lack of variety is boring. More dwarves in more flowers is a *type* of variety, sure, just not the type you'd want to see in a healthy ecosystem.

EDIT:
Ya'll write faster than me, and I'm behind the times.

But you said it more eloquently. : ) I like the mental images you conjured up.


Mountain Dwarves are not even in the top 10 for post-Tasha's Bladesinger races.

Medium armor even prevents a Bladesinger from using Bladesong, Song of Defense, or Song of Victory.

Tortle Bladesingers on the other hand...

[LudicSavant]

Tortle Bladesingers on the other hand...

...are yet another perfectly fine example of variety that I wouldn't see before Tasha's! :smallsmile:

[Segev]

...are yet another perfectly fine example of variety that I wouldn't see before Tasha's! :smallsmile:

Why not? Again, a 15 Int isn't cripplingly bad for a wizard to start with. Never reaching 20 isn't an unplayable wizard.

I agree that it sucks if you're using point-buy to have strength, which you may not care about, be 10 at a minimum and you thus have fewer points to spend than others; this is perfectly-well addressed by making point-buy offer you 4 points to Strength OR +2 to Strength. Your minimum-12 Strength, in that case, actually makes Strength potentially useful to you in some cases, making you more well-rounded in return for being less min/maxed.

A 15-int tortle wizard is perfectly viable.

[Theodoxus]

Tortle Bladesingers on the other hand...


...are yet another perfectly fine example of variety that I wouldn't see before Tasha's! :smallsmile:

Stay away from my Tortle "Jedi" Battlesmith 3/Bladesinger X build. It's mine, you hear, mine!

And I 100% agree with you Max regarding Rolled vs PB. It makes perfect sense, and actually basically refutes the "Race X is better than Race Y" that Tasha's was reportedly fixing. Rolled stats can be anything. You can end up with a Dwarf with a 5 Con (I mean, it's possible... though not really playable for long regardless of class). How is that a Paragon of Dwarven Constitution? Same with any other race that gets a +2 to a fixed stat. Rolling is a crap shoot (literally), and outside of a generous DM allowing rerolls or stat arrays, you're fairly likely to get sub 8 rolls with a 3d6 method.

@ Segev, I wish I'd known of your patch when I was running unmodded 5E. I could really get behind the generation method. No more boosting modifiers as high as possible, but increases the number of +2 and +3 stats across the board. Nifty.

[Segev]

@ Segev, I wish I'd known of your patch when I was running unmodded 5E. I could really get behind the generation method. No more boosting modifiers as high as possible, but increases the number of +2 and +3 stats across the board. Nifty.

I'm glad it appeals, even if you're past the time in your gaming career when you'd use it. The design principle is simply to look at what is causing perverse incentives, and figure out how to minimize them. (In White Wolf games, people who chuck the standard chargen method and instead calculate how many XP would be needed to generate either an optimal or a well-rounded build, then assign that many XP to spend at chargen, are solving a similar problem.)

At the very MINIMUM a tip of the hat goes to Ludic for pointing the problem out to me: I never play point-buy, always rolling stats, so I had a blind spot to that particular perverse incentive that genuinely did make playing something that didn't put the +2 in the "primary" stat feel unduly-punishing. In point-buy, you're legitimately costing yourself 3 build points if you don't put at LEAST a 13 into the stats your race boosts. Transforming them into 2 build points per +1 racial bonus to the stat evens that out. (you could also extend the chart to 17, at 2 points for 16 and 2 points for 17, but that opens up much bigger min/maxing, which is why I recommend not extending the chart but just giving the option of +2/+1 OR 4 points/2 points (in any combination) to the relevant racial stats)

[LudicSavant]

At the very MINIMUM a tip of the hat goes to Ludic for pointing the problem out to me: I never play point-buy, always rolling stats, so I had a blind spot to that particular perverse incentive that genuinely did make playing something that didn't put the +2 in the "primary" stat feel unduly-punishing. In point-buy, you're legitimately costing yourself 3 build points if you don't put at LEAST a 13 into the stats your race boosts. Transforming them into 2 build points per +1 racial bonus to the stat evens that out. (you could also extend the chart to 17, at 2 points for 16 and 2 points for 17, but that opens up much bigger min/maxing, which is why I recommend not extending the chart but just giving the option of +2/+1 OR 4 points/2 points (in any combination) to the relevant racial stats)

https://forums.giantitp.com/images/sand/icons/icon_thumbsup.png


Why not?

Oh, I'll see people take things for non-mechanical reasons all the time.

I'm pointing out the difference between what I would see picked for mechanical reasons before and after Tasha's. For any given class, I have found that there are more races on the competitive curve after than before, despite Mountain Dwarves getting an aberrant buff.

Basically, I've seen a few people express concern that Mountain Dwarf Wizards will just be the absolute best, but there are numerous races that are competitive with them (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25070423&postcount=38). Like (in the case of Bladesingers) Tortles.

[Segev]

Oh, I'll see people take things for non-mechanical reasons all the time.

I'm pointing out the difference between what I would see picked for mechanical reasons before and after Tasha's. For any given class, I have found that there are more races on the competitive curve after than before, despite Mountain Dwarves getting an aberrant buff.

See, I don't think they were OFF the "competitive curve" (provided you fix the flaw introduced by point-buy).

The mechanical reason to play a Tortle is always going to be AC 17. Everything else is gravy, or next-to-useless.

[MaxWilson]

...are yet another perfectly fine example of variety that I wouldn't see before Tasha's! :smallsmile:

...crush Elven Bladesingers out of existence with their long tongues and take over the entire Australian ecosystem, although Aarakocra Bladesingers prevent them from gaining a foothold in New Zealand.

[LudicSavant]

...crush Elven Bladesingers out of existence with their long tongues and take over the entire Australian ecosystem.

I know this is in blue text, but I don't think Tortle Bladesingers are gonna make Elven ones go extinct any time soon.

Almost all of the elf subraces have a strong optimization niche post-Tasha's. Shadar-Kai, Eladrin, and Mark of Shadow Elves are especially notable in a wide range of contexts. Post-Tasha's High Elves mostly show up for single-attack classes that want Booming Blade (like Rogue or Nature Cleric). Drow sometimes show up for SAD builds that don't care about making attack rolls (and thus might be picked over Half-Drow, trading a +1 in a tertiary stat for +1 skill, +4 tool proficiencies, and double-range Darkvision). Wood Elf Rogues are good for the same reasons they always were (Hide while being observed, charm resistance, speed boost, extra skill, Elven Accuracy and Wood Elf Magic access) except now with +4 tool proficiencies.

[Segev]

I know this is in blue text, but I don't think Tortle Bladesingers are gonna make Elven ones go extinct any time soon.

Almost all of the elf subraces have a strong optimization niche post-Tasha's. Shadar-Kai, Eladrin, and Mark of Shadow Elves are especially notable in a wide range of contexts. Post-Tasha's High Elves mostly show up for single-attack classes that want Booming Blade (like Rogue or Nature Cleric). Drow sometimes show up for SAD builds that don't care about making attack rolls (and thus might be picked over Half-Drow, trading a +1 in a tertiary stat for +1 skill, +4 tool proficiencies, and double-range Darkvision). Wood Elf Rogues are good for the same reasons they always were (Hide while being observed, charm resistance, speed boost, extra skill, Elven Accuracy and Wood Elf Magic access) except now with +4 tool proficiencies.

Why would elves be useful for these things in a way tortles aren't, post-Tasha's? They all get +2 to Dex or Int or whatever it is they deem best for the build. And Tortles have 17 AC.

[LudicSavant]

Why would elves be useful for these things in a way tortles aren't, post-Tasha's? They all get +2 to Dex or Int or whatever it is they deem best for the build. And Tortles have 17 AC.

A Shadar-Kai has Darkvision, Necrotic Resistance (one of the best elemental Resistances, both because it's super common, and because it's not easily replicated via Absorb Elements or the like), Charm Resistance (also a particularly valuable resistance), a non-spell bonus-action teleport (important because you can cast a spell on the same round you use it), the ability to get Resistance to all damage for a round, access to Elven Accuracy, and the ability to wear magical armor. A Tortle has none of these things.

[Theodoxus]

A Shadar-Kai has +1 skill, Darkvision, Necrotic Resistance (one of the best elemental Resistances, both because it's super common, and because it's not easily replicated via Absorb Elements or the like), Charm Resistance (also a particularly valuable resistance), a non-spell bonus-action teleport (important because you can cast a spell on the same round you use it), the ability to get Resistance to all damage for a round, access to Elven Accuracy, and the ability to wear magical armor. A Tortle has none of these things.

Yeah, but you have to sacrifice a claw attack and an immobilizing +4 to AC to do it!

[LudicSavant]

Yeah, but you have to sacrifice a claw attack and an immobilizing +4 to AC to do it!

https://schneide.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/onoz-omg.gif

[Eldariel]

I know this is in blue text, but I don't think Tortle Bladesingers are gonna make Elven ones go extinct any time soon.

Almost all of the elf subraces have a strong optimization niche post-Tasha's. Shadar-Kai, Eladrin, and Mark of Shadow Elves are especially notable in a wide range of contexts. Post-Tasha's High Elves mostly show up for single-attack classes that want Booming Blade (like Rogue or Nature Cleric). Drow sometimes show up for SAD builds that don't care about making attack rolls (and thus might be picked over Half-Drow, trading a +1 in a tertiary stat for +1 skill, +4 tool proficiencies, and double-range Darkvision). Wood Elf Rogues are good for the same reasons they always were (Hide while being observed, charm resistance, speed boost, extra skill, Elven Accuracy and Wood Elf Magic access) except now with +4 tool proficiencies.

Elves also have weapon proficiencies, which in the context of Bladesinger means they can do ranged builds and more varied melee builds (if you want e.g. Rapier and Whip proficiency) without multiclassing. Half-Elves can do it too: they get +1 in tertiary stat while Elves get +1 skill proficiency and the auxiliary benefits (trance, cantrip/hide bonus/etc.). Which combined with EA is a significant edge.

[Thunderous Mojo]

but you seem to be making some other argument. What does "the optimizer's choice was already limited" mean in this context, and what do you think you're arguing against?

I'm not actively arguing against something. I'm commenting that Any optimization strategy that someone arrives at, is going to include their predisposition to favor certain traits over others, and as well include their internal metric on assigning value to traits/abilities.

There are too many variables in an actual game of D&D to realistically calculate, in a positivism- like fashion, an 100% accurate forecast for what will be the best tactics for X future event in X future game.

In practice, people are using forecasting models similar to economic models.......(even if they don't know it 😉),and like all economic models, how one 'prices' Opportunity Costs, is going to significantly impact the conclusion.


If you were inclined to like Goblins Pre-TCoE, you still probably do.
If you were inclined to dislike Goliaths Pre-TCoE, you still probably do.
For other combos that you were slightly disinclined to use before, you might use them now


Last weekend, I improvised an One Shot session, and someone made an Orc Wizard. The Aggressive ability works, even if the PC can just hear the opponent.

Pre TCoE, this fun little fact, was a curio.. interesting but not worth it to risk taking the combo.

Post TCoE, while some combos might be better, an Orc Wizard is at least competitive now.

[loki_ragnarock]

I'm not actively arguing against something. I'm commenting that Any optimization strategy that someone arrives at, is going to include their predisposition to favor certain traits over others, and as well include their internal metric on assigning value to traits/abilities.

There are too many variables in an actual game of D&D to realistically calculate, in a positivism- like fashion, an 100% accurate forecast for what will be the best tactics for X future event in X future game.

In practice, people are using forecasting models similar to economic models.......(even if they don't know it 😉),and like all economic models, how one 'prices' Opportunity Costs, is going to significantly impact the conclusion.


If you were inclined to like Goblins Pre-TCoE, you still probably do.
If you were inclined to dislike Goliaths Pre-TCoE, you still probably do.
For other combos that you were slightly disinclined to use before, you might use them now


Last weekend, I improvised an One Shot session, and someone made an Orc Wizard. The Aggressive ability works, even if the PC can just hear the opponent.

Pre TCoE, this fun little fact, was a curio.. interesting but not worth it to risk taking the combo.

Post TCoE, while some combos might be better, an Orc Wizard is at least competitive now.

Generally true.

Except with regards to Gnomes and Yuan-ti. As now anything the one can do, the other can do better. Except maybe riding their class features. But the gnome niche has been substantially reduced from the very best of wizards and artificers to... something very narrow, indeed.

I have mixed feelings about the rule.

Because as much as it reduces the already narrow niche that Gnomes existed in, it also finally makes it so that Githzerai make sense as monks. The flavor text, the art, the monster entries; all of it pushes this image of Githzerai as monks, which they weren't that well suited for with that int bonus. They weren't impossible to make work, but it was janky. Especially when they made top quality clerics or druids, neither of which fit their presentation.

So... gnomes, already a threatened species, find themselves on the endangered list. Boo.
Githzerai, already on the endangered list, can bounce back to threatened. Yay.

(I say threatened because while Githzerai can now be monks with sensible stat bonuses, they are now in competition with everything else for being *the best* monks... a competition they are unlikely to win.)

It also means that - finally - there are races that get a +2 wisdom bonus other than Githzerai. This empowers more clerics and druids, who really needed the bump.

[Dork_Forge]

I have mixed feelings about the rule.

Because as much as it reduces the already narrow niche that Gnomes existed in, it also finally makes it so that Githzerai make sense as monks. The flavor text, the art, the monster entries; all of it pushes this image of Githzerai as monks, which they weren't that well suited for with that int bonus. They weren't impossible to make work, but it was janky. Especially when they made top quality clerics or druids, neither of which fit their presentation.

They make good Astral Self and decent 4E Monks, not having a Dex bump isn't really that janky at all.


So... gnomes, already a threatened species, find themselves on the endangered list. Boo.
Githzerai, already on the endangered list, can bounce back to threatened. Yay.

Threatened? They racially get a superior version of Shield and their stats (which are far from the be all end all) make them good Cleridcs, Druids, Wis focused Monks and Wis focused Rangers.



It also means that - finally - there are races that get a +2 wisdom bonus other than Githzerai.

Firbolg, Kalashtar, Wildhunt Shifters, Mark of Handling and Mark of Finding Humans and Half Orcs already got +2 Wis bonuses.

With Firbolg predating the Githzerai.

[loki_ragnarock]

They make good Astral Self and decent 4E Monks, not having a Dex bump isn't really that janky at all.


As Astral Self was introduced in the self same book as the other rule? Nah, the int bump was janky for most of their existence.

The patch of a specific subclass came at the same time as a patch to the racial ASI system as a whole. Both can solve the jank, but neither solve existed before the other.

4e is... look two janks don't make a solve.


Threatened? They racially get a superior version of Shield and their stats (which are far from the be all end all) make them good Cleridcs, Druids, Wis focused Monks and Wis focused Rangers.

Clerics, sure. Druids, yes. Spellcasters are pretty sad sad in general and a bump to dex or con or the like is just gravy. For druids specifically being able to mostly ignore their physical stats makes the int bump mostly innocuous. Shield synergizes well with cleric armor proficiencies, and helps mitigate the low ac variations of wildshape where hp are basically free; it's a win all around. They made very good divine casters.

But monks and rangers? They're both too MAD to be dropping those ASIs into quaternary or quintenary stats. 1 free use of shield a day might mitigate having a lower AC a in one instance in a day. The monk *might* be able to push that superior mobility to insulate themselves from threats, but they are more vulnerable and do less damage (minus the simultaneous subclass) in exchange for +4 to AC once a day, post third level. The ranger miiiiiight be able to stay at range, but they aren't going to be particularly good at ranged combat. If they're relying on Shillelagh and Thornwhip while staying in melee range, they're going to have a tough time of it, but for once a day, post third level. If they are relying on sacred flame or toll the dead, they might have a slightly better time of it... just most of those class features and several of those supporting spells might not be so useful, and they burnt a feat or multi-classed to get there.

There's a use case, but it's a hard sell for pre-Tasha's monks and rangers when it comes to a Githzerai.

Post Tasha's it's an easier sell. It just has to compete with all the other things that are *also* an easier sell.





Firbolg, Kalashtar, Wildhunt Shifters, Mark of Handling and Mark of Finding Humans and Half Orcs already got +2 Wis bonuses.

With Firbolg predating the Githzerai.

... fair enough, I misremembered Firbolgs ASIs. I always forget about shifters. And that's how they get me. Kalashtars run into similar non-synergistic ASI issue as Githzerai. Mark of X is usually better than competing races, but I definitely forgot those two. (And with them in the mix with their spell list expanding powers, though, I'm not sure Githzerai compare well.)

On this point I'll consider myself fully repudiated: Turns out clerics and druids didn't need the help after all.

Jeeze. Now you've got me thinking about how Tasha's ASI bending rules would apply to dragonmarked races. Ugh. They're already one of the ways to expand spell lists, but now they're basically always optimal? Yeah, I'ma have to stand by the "Githzerai are listed as threatened" now that you've reminded me of dragonmarks. If Gith are always competing with them, that's always going to be a hard sell. Any race competing with dragonmarked races would be a hard sell.

[Theodoxus]

So... gnomes, already a threatened species, find themselves on the endangered list. Boo.
Githzerai, already on the endangered list, can bounce back to threatened. Yay.

I don't think gnome is that threatened, honestly. While YT is stronger, sometimes you want a small size instead (or even not KOS once your YT-ness is discovered). The advantage on mental saves rocks when looking at, say, a Barbarian. If you're not looking at a great weapon build - say, Beast, or any barbarian/rogue multiclass, you either have proficiency in saves (Str, Con), or advantage on saves (Cha, Int, Wis along with Dex starting at 2nd level barbi). If you're in a magic heavy campaign, that can be quite powerful. Works similarly for Fighters. OTOH, stacking advantage and proficiency saves makes gnomish Clerics bedrocks on non-influence. Kinda sucks when your resident party buffer gets Confused, Charmed, Commanded... with proficiency and advantage? Not likely happening.

[Dork_Forge]

As Astral Self was introduced in the self same book as the other rule? Nah, the int bump was janky for most of their existence.

The patch of a specific subclass came at the same time as a patch to the racial ASI system as a whole. Both can solve the jank, but neither solve existed before the other.

4e is... look two janks don't make a solve.

My point with Astral Self was that they make perfectly working Monks with just Monk class +subclass, so the optional rule isn't 'needed' not that one predated the other.

4e isn't the greatest but it really isn't as bad as its reputation imo


Clerics, sure. Druids, yes. Spellcasters are pretty sad sad in general and a bump to dex or con or the like is just gravy. For druids specifically being able to mostly ignore their physical stats makes the int bump mostly innocuous. Shield synergizes well with cleric armor proficiencies, and helps mitigate the low ac variations of wildshape where hp are basically free; it's a win all around. They made very good divine casters.

Agreed, the psionic casting is a fantastic addition to Wildshaping or sword and board.


But monks and rangers? They're both too MAD to be dropping those ASIs into quaternary or quintenary stats. 1 free use of shield a day might mitigate having a lower AC a in one instance in a day. The monk *might* be able to push that superior mobility to insulate themselves from threats, but they are more vulnerable and do less damage (minus the simultaneous subclass) in exchange for +4 to AC once a day, post third level. The ranger miiiiiight be able to stay at range, but they aren't going to be particularly good at ranged combat. If they're relying on Shillelagh and Thornwhip while staying in melee range, they're going to have a tough time of it, but for once a day, post third level. If they are relying on sacred flame or toll the dead, they might have a slightly better time of it... just most of those class features and several of those supporting spells might not be so useful, and they burnt a feat or multi-classed to get there.
There's a use case, but it's a hard sell for pre-Tasha's monks and rangers when it comes to a Githzerai.


Rangers get medium armor and shields, you only need a 14 Dex for that which you can happily point buy without any racial bump at all.

PB you can end up with 9 14 14 10 17 10, round out your Wis with a half feat of choice at 4th, if you go with one of the Tasha's feats you'll even have a good spell save DC for it.

If you're referring to burning a feat or MC to get there, previously yes (so was perfectly workable previously) post Tasha's you just take the cantrip fighting style and enjoy.

What class features wouldn't really work for them? Spells that rely on adding to weapon attacks that need Dex can just not be taken, it's no real loss and you wouldn't really be using Hail of Thorns etc. much as a melee Ranger period (though on this build it's actually still viable since you'll have a better DC and you don't need to hit for hail to trigger).

For Monks I'd have just settled for a slightly delayed Dex and a higher Wis, the end result isn't really hurting you much if at all and you'll end up with good Stun DCs.




Post Tasha's it's an easier sell. It just has to compete with all the other things that are *also* an easier sell.

Eh, I dont see this being about competing, I see it about someone wanting to play a Gith x y or z and seeing that not having the perfect stat bumps doesn't really hinder it much.


... fair enough, I misremembered Firbolgs ASIs. I always forget about shifters. And that's how they get me. Kalashtars run into similar non-synergistic ASI issue as Githzerai. Mark of X is usually better than competing races, but I definitely forgot those two. (And with them in the mix with their spell list expanding powers, though, I'm not sure Githzerai compare well.)

On this point I'll consider myself fully repudiated: Turns out clerics and druids didn't need the help after all.

Honestly first time I've seen that word, so apologies if there is any negative connotations with it? Was just trying to highlight that there was plenty of +2 Wis races already.


Jeeze. Now you've got me thinking about how Tasha's ASI bending rules would apply to dragonmarked races. Ugh. They're already one of the ways to expand spell lists, but now they're basically always optimal? Yeah, I'ma have to stand by the "Githzerai are listed as threatened" now that you've reminded me of dragonmarks. If Gith are always competing with them, that's always going to be a hard sell. Any race competing with dragonmarked races would be a hard sell.


Stuff like Dragonmarks is what annoys me so much about the 'optional' rule, it's not just about the inherent impact of it, it's about how it stacks with all the other nonsense they've put out here and there.

Still not on the competing wavelength though, if people want to play something then they will, concept > minor mechanical hindrance.

I played a Gtihyanki Jedi (Psi Warrior) recently and loved it, part of my aim was just to do sick flips and flip in a sick manner I did...

...unfortunately not get the opportunity to do but it was a fun build that worked well.

[loki_ragnarock]

I don't think gnome is that threatened, honestly. While YT is stronger, sometimes you want a small size instead (or even not KOS once your YT-ness is discovered). The advantage on mental saves rocks when looking at, say, a Barbarian. If you're not looking at a great weapon build - say, Beast, or any barbarian/rogue multiclass, you either have proficiency in saves (Str, Con), or advantage on saves (Cha, Int, Wis along with Dex starting at 2nd level barbi). If you're in a magic heavy campaign, that can be quite powerful. Works similarly for Fighters. OTOH, stacking advantage and proficiency saves makes gnomish Clerics bedrocks on non-influence. Kinda sucks when your resident party buffer gets Confused, Charmed, Commanded... with proficiency and advantage? Not likely happening.

... I agree; gnomes can be good. The problem is that now - outside of riding things - Yuan-ti will always be just a little bit better.

Yuan-ti outperform on the advantage thing by also including all physical saves v. magic. As much as confused, charmed, commanded aren't great, petrification, paralysis, stun and the like aren't great either; being able to stack advantage on top of con proficiency is just that little bit better. The poisoned condition also sucks; being straight immune to it is ain't bad at all, while taking no damage from poison mitigates one of the easy, ubiquitous ways to bypass that barbarian damage reduction. That gnome beast barbarian totally works, it just works ever so slightly better with Yuan-ti, who can also slot into the barbarian builds that would use GWM. If you want advantage on a bunch of saves and *don't* want to ride things in dungeons, Yuan-ti is going to be the slightly better choice.
But getting relegated to "riding things and also advantage on some saves" is a hard downgrade from "among the very best choices for wizards, with some additional niche uses."

KOS is going to be setting dependent; if you've got an empire of evil, slaver gnomes, they get the KOS tag, too.

[loki_ragnarock]

Honestly first time I've seen that word, so apologies if there is any negative connotations with it? Was just trying to highlight that there was plenty of +2 Wis races already.


No worries!

Assume everything I say is meant in play, jest, or the spirit of fun. Even if it's poking fun at myself.

EDIT:

If you're referring to burning a feat or MC to get there, previously yes (so was perfectly workable previously) post Tasha's you just take the cantrip fighting style and enjoy.

... for Shillelagh and Thornwhip, yes. Although I hadn't realized how many extra cantrips druids got access to in Xanathar's. Rangers get druid cantrips, which in the PHB were all closer range; poison spray, thornwhip, shillelagh in core. Xanathar's really shook up that dynamic, though, and I hadn't grocked how much till just now. Create Bonfire by itself is enough to kick booty as a wis ranger, thanks to the nature of it's area of effect.
I really sold that short. That's waaaaaaay better than Toll the Dead. I stand repudiated, again; grabbing primal savagery for close work and Create Bonfire for range/area makes for a pretty inclusive attack routine.

Paladin's get the fighting style for sacred flame and toll the dead. They can get cleric cantrips. If you want those as a ranger you're still multi-classing or dropping a feat. But I don't know why you'd want them if you can get create bonfire.

[MaxWilson]

Now you've got me thinking about how Tasha's ASI bending rules would apply to dragonmarked races. Ugh. They're already one of the ways to expand spell lists, but now they're basically always optimal? Yeah, I'ma have to stand by the "Githzerai are listed as threatened" now that you've reminded me of dragonmarks. If Gith are always competing with them, that's always going to be a hard sell. Any race competing with dragonmarked races would be a hard sell.

Yeah, the antisynergistic ASIs are a really neat piece of design for Dragonmarked races. It would be a pity to throw that away.

Perhaps you could persuade your players/DM that Dragonmarked races should be an exception to the floating stats rule, even if you otherwise use it.

[Paladin777]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but any build that relies on Dex for AC but not attack (almost all arcane casters) become pretty much completely SAD when using a tortle with moved around ability scores. That gives them an even bigger advantage than the dwarves +2/+2 as they can dump Dex to the sea with absolutely no drawbacks. They could easily get away with preracial 15int/cha (with racial +2) and 13con (with racial +1) and all their other points are completely free. While the rest of their racials aren't fantastic, they're not bad either, and the 17 AC more than makes up for it. That also gives them an additional spell slot per day as compared to most casters as they'll never need to prepare Mage Armor. At low levels that's actually a pretty big deal!

Ultimately I just think that Tasha's rules are lazy and ham-fisted.

[Kuulvheysoon]

While I do ultimately like the Tasha's rules about switching ability scores to not be tied to race, my biggest issue with it is that it was introduced in the middle (?) of the edition.

If it had been a core design feature of 5E, I would be applauding along with everyone else. Alas, this was done with little to no regard to the balance between the races (imho), and honestly feels like more of a PR move. Yeah, it's a little problematic. I'm not gonna lie to you. But from a strictly game balance perspective, it's more than a little sloppy with how they did it.

Should they have it as a part of 6E? Absolutely. But balance the racial design with that intent in mind. Throw together a base guide to follow for the races (everyone gets +2/+1, make background features more impactful, and 2/3 abilities that really define the race) and stick with it for the whole edition (or at least the whole half-edition, à la 3.0/3.5e).

[Segev]

While I do ultimately like the Tasha's rules about switching ability scores to not be tied to race, my biggest issue with it is that it was introduced in the middle (?) of the edition.

If it had been a core design feature of 5E, I would be applauding along with everyone else. Alas, this was done with little to no regard to the balance between the races (imho), and honestly feels like more of a PR move. Yeah, it's a little problematic. I'm not gonna lie to you. But from a strictly game balance perspective, it's more than a little sloppy with how they did it.

Should they have it as a part of 6E? Absolutely. But balance the racial design with that intent in mind. Throw together a base guide to follow for the races (everyone gets +2/+1, make background features more impactful, and 2/3 abilities that really define the race) and stick with it for the whole edition (or at least the whole half-edition, à la 3.0/3.5e).

For a new edition, they could fully acknowledge that the "racial" bonuses no longer are, and either j st bake them in to the stat generation system, or tie them to classes. Given that all the "it opens up options for such creativity!" arguments are based on stats "needing" to be perfect for your class, this is essentially what they've done, anyway, while still calling them 'racial bonuses'.

[Paladin777]

Call me old fashioned, but I actually like the idea of racial (read species) aptitude. Dwarves are naturally more resilient than most other races, half-orcs are naturally stronger than most races, elves are naturally more graceful than others. To ignore this is stupid and I think that it should be reflected in the rules. One of the simplest and most elegant ways to do so is through racial (again: read species!) bonuses.

I also don't think making 'playing against type' an uphill battle a particularly bad thing either. It's not like a half-orc wizard is unplayable, same with a gnome barbarian. They may not be 'optimized,' but so what!

[Veldrenor]

Call me old fashioned, but I actually like the idea of racial (read species) aptitude. Dwarves are naturally more resilient than most other races, half-orcs are naturally stronger than most races, elves are naturally more graceful than others. To ignore this is stupid and I think that it should be reflected in the rules. One of the simplest and most elegant ways to do so is through racial (again: read species!) bonuses.

It's simple, it's elegant, but it's not very effective at conveying those aptitudes. If you want to convey that dwarves are more resilient, then the mechanics have to reinforce that fact for everyone at the table. Racial ASIs/proficiencies don't reinforce the racial fluff for everyone at the table because, once you leave character creation, you're the only person who sees them. No one else at the table is looking at your character sheet; they don't see what your stats and bonuses and proficiencies are or where they come from. When you roll a 17 on Perception, no one else at the table knows that you rolled 17 because you have proficiency in Perception from being a Tabaxi; they just know that you rolled a 17. If your barbarian rolls a 14 to attack and misses by 1, no one else knows that you missed because you're an elf instead of a half-orc; they just see that you rolled a 14.

Triggered, conditional, and active abilities are much better at conveying what a race is because they call clear, unambiguous attention to it. Whenever you get dropped to 0HP but you use Relentless Endurance to stay at 1, everyone is reminded that you're a half-orc and half-orcs are tough. Whenever you use Nimble Escape to disengage as a bonus action, everyone is reminded that you're a goblin and goblins are sneaky. When you finish your long rest in 4 hours and can take a double-shift watch, everyone is reminded that you're an elf and elves are sort of alien.

[Theodoxus]

As mentioned in another thread, if you wanted to really show dwarven toughness, roll Stone Endurance, Toughness, Poison Resistance, and Relentless Endurance all on one chassis. Shrug off damage, have extra hit points and pop back up from 0? Talk about being a tough little bugger. Even without a straight up boost to Con, dwarves would be hard to kill.

You could make 6 races, all tied to a single attribute. Strength would get Savage Attacks, Menacing and Powerful Build
Dexterity would have Fleet of Foot, Mask of the Wild, Lucky, and Nimbleness
Constitution as above
Intelligence: Cantrip, Magic Resistance, Artificer's Lore, and Tinker
Wisdom: Keen Senses, Trance, Brave and Magic Resistance
Charisma: Fey Ancestry, Infernal Legacy / Drow Magic, and Magic Resistance

I don't think I'd ever go that route, but it could be a thing.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Yeah, the antisynergistic ASIs are a really neat piece of design for Dragonmarked races. It would be a pity to throw that away.

Perhaps you could persuade your players/DM that Dragonmarked races should be an exception to the floating stats rule, even if you otherwise use it.

The Floating Stat rule from TCoE is the general rule, and the Dragonmarked races are very specific variation of the Variant Human...so I think a very cogent case can be made to disallow Attribute Modifier Swaps for Eberron Dragonmarks.

Most of the Dragonmarked races already have a floating +1 attribute bonus as written, besides.

As for gnomes, admittedly, it is difficult for me to become to worked up over the perception of gnomes being 'endangered'. In decades of play, I've only seen three gnomish characters.

The fantasy archetype of "Gnome" isn't very developed, in my opinion, and as such I think most people don't consider playing the race. The Grey Gnome seems to be the most popular variety, for those that would play a gnome.

(Garden Gnomes don't seem to be the garden variety based off player choice)

Grey Gnomes have some story investment by D&D...the Underdark version of something is always 'Cool'; meanwhile regular gnomes are like brunch...not quite dinner, (dwarfs), and not quite breakfast, (halflings).

Some people just don't like brunch.

[bid]

Late on this but...

If, at 4th level, you take a feat with the half-elf and an ASI with the variant human, they should end up in an identical position, except that the half-elf has fey ancestry, darkvision, and an extra skill, not insignificant upgrades.
I used to believe that, but I was shown that vuman can get Cha18 and a feat.

[Witty Username]

A Shadar-Kai has Darkvision, Necrotic Resistance (one of the best elemental Resistances, both because it's super common, and because it's not easily replicated via Absorb Elements or the like), Charm Resistance (also a particularly valuable resistance), a non-spell bonus-action teleport (important because you can cast a spell on the same round you use it), the ability to get Resistance to all damage for a round, access to Elven Accuracy, and the ability to wear magical armor. A Tortle has none of these things.

I would add that you can swap the weapons you won't use anyway for proficiency in a tool set for each weapon, I actually really like that for utility stuff.

[Dork_Forge]

No worries!

Assume everything I say is meant in play, jest, or the spirit of fun. Even if it's poking fun at myself.

Thanks for clarifying!

EDIT:


... for Shillelagh and Thornwhip, yes. Although I hadn't realized how many extra cantrips druids got access to in Xanathar's. Rangers get druid cantrips, which in the PHB were all closer range; poison spray, thornwhip, shillelagh in core. Xanathar's really shook up that dynamic, though, and I hadn't grocked how much till just now. Create Bonfire by itself is enough to kick booty as a wis ranger, thanks to the nature of it's area of effect.
I really sold that short. That's waaaaaaay better than Toll the Dead. I stand repudiated, again; grabbing primal savagery for close work and Create Bonfire for range/area makes for a pretty inclusive attack routine.

Primal Savagery is worse than just using Shillelagh, but it's definitely an option. What are you considering to be short range? Thornwhip is a range of 30ft...


Paladin's get the fighting style for sacred flame and toll the dead. They can get cleric cantrips. If you want those as a ranger you're still multi-classing or dropping a feat. But I don't know why you'd want them if you can get create bonfire.

Not sure if you thought I implied this or it was just run on thoughts, I see no reason why a Ranger would try and get these.

FWIW the Paladin in one of my games snagged Guidance with it.


It's simple, it's elegant, but it's not very effective at conveying those aptitudes. If you want to convey that dwarves are more resilient, then the mechanics have to reinforce that fact for everyone at the table. Racial ASIs/proficiencies don't reinforce the racial fluff for everyone at the table because, once you leave character creation, you're the only person who sees them. No one else at the table is looking at your character sheet; they don't see what your stats and bonuses and proficiencies are or where they come from. When you roll a 17 on Perception, no one else at the table knows that you rolled 17 because you have proficiency in Perception from being a Tabaxi; they just know that you rolled a 17. If your barbarian rolls a 14 to attack and misses by 1, no one else knows that you missed because you're an elf instead of a half-orc; they just see that you rolled a 14.

Triggered, conditional, and active abilities are much better at conveying what a race is because they call clear, unambiguous attention to it. Whenever you get dropped to 0HP but you use Relentless Endurance to stay at 1, everyone is reminded that you're a half-orc and half-orcs are tough. Whenever you use Nimble Escape to disengage as a bonus action, everyone is reminded that you're a goblin and goblins are sneaky. When you finish your long rest in 4 hours and can take a double-shift watch, everyone is reminded that you're an elf and elves are sort of alien.

You can just... describe it? Nobody knows that Relentless Endurance happens unless you say it does, there's no roll. There's no reason why you can't describe your racial ASIs and profs the same way you'd describe other abilties, it's a TTRPG, the fluff is why a lot of people do it anyway, and if you're not doing it for the crunch of the fight then you probably care about what you have rather than whether or not it's clear to others where it came from.


Late on this but...

I used to believe that, but I was shown that vuman can get Cha18 and a feat.

Two half feats right?

[OldTrees1]

Late on this but...

I used to believe that, but I was shown that vuman can get Cha18 and a feat.

15 + 1 + 2 = 18
VHuman with a Feat (and +1 to 1 other stat)
Half Elf with a Cha Half Feat (and +1 to 2 other stats, darkvision, an extra skill, and Fey Ancestry)

What were you shown? I see Half Elf getting some strong compensation for their feat only being a Half Feat (like Elven Accuracy)

[loki_ragnarock]

Primal Savagery is worse than just using Shillelagh, but it's definitely an option. What are you considering to be short range? Thornwhip is a range of 30ft...



Not sure if you thought I implied this or it was just run on thoughts, I see no reason why a Ranger would try and get these.

FWIW the Paladin in one of my games snagged Guidance with it.


Primal Savagery was more about reminding myself that Druids have waaaaaaaay more than the core cantrips available. I agree that shillelagh is better on a ranger; better synergy for class abilities and support spells.

Thornwhip has a thirty foot range, but the rider is pulling things closer; you start with range, you end with close. That was kind of the ongoing theme of druid cantrips in core; down and dirty, up close work, where even the ranged option facilitated that. With the (10?) druid cantrips introduced in Xanathar's that dynamic changed alot. I'd been living in the past; the core breakdown of "Druid Cantrip close, Cleric Cantrip far" doesn't apply at all once the splats hit the table.
Thus, I was stuck on Sacred Flame as the keeping people distant wis based at will attack of choice.

I don't do druid dudes; the evolution of their cantrip list had escaped my notice. Create Bonfire wasn't even in my vocabulary for druids. So the notion of a ranger running around throwing perpetual mini fireballs hadn't turned my lips upward until, oh, now-ish.

[Second Wind]

Yes, but not the way the OP suggests.

Locked-in stats make comparisons harder. Nearly every race is good or passable when its stats match the class, and lousy when they don't. How do you compare a half-orc to a gnome when they're good at completely different classes? Dragonborn get the short end of the stick, but they're still better paladins than most. Most races defy direct comparison, which obscures balance.

With Tasha's flexible stats, every race has reasonable stats for every class, and so we can compare apples to apples instead of apples to cranberries.

[Veldrenor]

You can just... describe it?

Yes, you as a player can absolutely do that. You as a DM can do that too. If you remember to. If you keep track of where your or your players' assorted abilities come from. When you write down your ability scores do you write "14, +2 orc bonus" for your strength, or do you write "16"? When you roll a perception check do you say "I rolled 12, plus 2 from wisdom, plus 1 from wood elf racial ASI, plus 2 from wood elf proficiency, total 17," "I rolled 12 plus 5, 17," or "I rolled 17"? Do you as a DM keep track of whether the lizardfolk outlander ranger got proficiency in Survival from their race, their background, or their class, and how do you describe it such that it's clear to the players which of those sources is the relevant one?

And if you recognize the value that descriptions add, do the other players recognize it? Let's say that you describe "I rolled 17 stealth" as "on soft paws I prowl forward, each motion careful and fluid. Like a shadow I flow into the gap behind the pillar, ears flicking to catch the sound of approaching footsteps." Do the other players think "cool, tabaxi are quiet and dexterous," or do they think "dude, just tell us the roll and let's get on with it"? You're taking time away from the game part of the game to enforce the fiction part of the game, when the game part of the game could be enforcing the fiction by itself. I don't have to describe tabaxi being fast to convey that tabaxi are fast, I just have to say "I use Feline Agility to move 60 feet."


Nobody knows that Relentless Endurance happens unless you say it does, there's no roll.

But that's part of normal combat. Managing HP is a critical component of the combat engine, so there's this constant flow of comments among the group tracking everyone's status. Everyone announces when they hit 0HP because everyone needs to know that "hey, we have a problem." So when the half-orc gets dropped to 0 they say "that takes me to 0, but Relentless Endurance keeps me up," because that's a signal to the rest of the party that they really need healing ASAP. The player isn't going out of their way to highlight Relentless Endurance, the normal flow of the game just goes "hey look, I'm still up, I'm tough."

[Paladin777]

Maybe I'm spoiled as I've got incredible DM's in my group, but normally we give the roll totals when skill checks are made and the DM is the one who provides the flavor text and we love it. All the people that have DM'd in this group have been that way. Some of these guys have been playing since 1st ed. I've been gaming with these guys for almost 10 years and I'm the newcomer!

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, you as a player can absolutely do that. You as a DM can do that too. If you remember to. If you keep track of where your or your players' assorted abilities come from. When you write down your ability scores do you write "14, +2 orc bonus" for your strength, or do you write "16"? When you roll a perception check do you say "I rolled 12, plus 2 from wisdom, plus 1 from wood elf racial ASI, plus 2 from wood elf proficiency, total 17," "I rolled 12 plus 5, 17," or "I rolled 17"? Do you as a DM keep track of whether the lizardfolk outlander ranger got proficiency in Survival from their race, their background, or their class, and how do you describe it such that it's clear to the players which of those sources is the relevant one?

And if you recognize the value that descriptions add, do the other players recognize it? Let's say that you describe "I rolled 17 stealth" as "on soft paws I prowl forward, each motion careful and fluid. Like a shadow I flow into the gap behind the pillar, ears flicking to catch the sound of approaching footsteps." Do the other players think "cool, tabaxi are quiet and dexterous," or do they think "dude, just tell us the roll and let's get on with it"? You're taking time away from the game part of the game to enforce the fiction part of the game, when the game part of the game could be enforcing the fiction by itself. I don't have to describe tabaxi being fast to convey that tabaxi are fast, I just have to say "I use Feline Agility to move 60 feet."

If you're in a game where people get annoyed at flavouring things then they probably don't care where things come from to begin with... like I said previously. If you just want to roll and do things entirely mechanically then seeming (insert race)-ish is a non issue.




But that's part of normal combat. Managing HP is a critical component of the combat engine, so there's this constant flow of comments among the group tracking everyone's status. Everyone announces when they hit 0HP because everyone needs to know that "hey, we have a problem." So when the half-orc gets dropped to 0 they say "that takes me to 0, but Relentless Endurance keeps me up," because that's a signal to the rest of the party that they really need healing ASAP. The player isn't going out of their way to highlight Relentless Endurance, the normal flow of the game just goes "hey look, I'm still up, I'm tough."

And to a lot of people describing things in general is part of combat, you can also look at it as:

"Hey, X you're a Half Orc, you have a decent Str right?"

Even if X dumped their Str they'd still likely have a 10 minimum.

[Ettina]

KOS is going to be setting dependent; if you've got an empire of evil, slaver gnomes, they get the KOS tag, too.

In one of the settings I played in, the roles of gnomes and kobolds were reversed relative to Faerun. Gnomes lived in small settlements outside of regular civilizations and tended to be hostile to everyone, and the main town had roughly 1/3 of its population be kobolds, along with one of the three rulers of the town.

In the Dark Sun setting, gnomes are vicious cannibals.

[Dork_Forge]

In one of the settings I played in, the roles of gnomes and kobolds were reversed relative to Faerun. Gnomes lived in small settlements outside of regular civilizations and tended to be hostile to everyone, and the main town had roughly 1/3 of its population be kobolds, along with one of the three rulers of the town.

In the Dark Sun setting, gnomes are vicious cannibals.

In Dark Sun Gnomes were exterminated by the Sorcerer Kings, Halflings are cannibals I believe.

[Ettina]

In Dark Sun Gnomes were exterminated by the Sorcerer Kings, Halflings are cannibals I believe.

Right, I got the two mixed up.

[Segev]

Yes, but not the way the OP suggests.

Locked-in stats make comparisons harder. Nearly every race is good or passable when its stats match the class, and lousy when they don't. How do you compare a half-orc to a gnome when they're good at completely different classes? Dragonborn get the short end of the stick, but they're still better paladins than most. Most races defy direct comparison, which obscures balance.

With Tasha's flexible stats, every race has reasonable stats for every class, and so we can compare apples to apples instead of apples to cranberries.

Except...in theory, stats that don't synergize with traits allow for stronger traits to match one class, and stats to match another, if that's your balance concern.

They needed to revisit all of the core and earlier-released races and change their traits to account for the new balance point if this was to be anything other than a lazy kludge. And, frankly, I don't see how it solves the problem they claim it does regarding real world issues impinging on the game, since traits still can represent "unfortunate stereotypes" just as much as - if not more than - stat mods.

It simply isn't done for the right reasons, and they didn't put enough thought into it. Going forward with it as no-longer-optional only rubs in that they've disregarded balance for non-game-related reasons.

If this truly is a superior way to go, it's worth doing right. Either release a full 5.5 that incorporates this change, or wait for 6e. NOT including suggested racial adjustments for new races only makes having the racial adjustments at all a foolish thing to do. If they feel that racial stat mods are that problematic, the new races can easily lack them and get an extra trait or two.

[Second Wind]

They needed to revisit all of the core and earlier-released races and change their traits to account for the new balance point if this was to be anything other than a lazy kludge.
Agreed. But they needed to revisit the races to account for the old balance point, too. The races weren't remotely balanced pre-Tasha's, so I'm none too fussed that Tasha's disrupts that imbalance.

[Segev]

Agreed. But they needed to revisit the races to account for the old balance point, too. The races weren't remotely balanced pre-Tasha's, so I'm none too fussed that Tasha's disrupts that imbalance.

"The car was already sputtering a bit and occasionally needed to be spot-fixed for oil leaks, so I'm not too worried that the oil tank has been unscrewed and left to rattle around loosely," sounds like a similar sentiment, to me.

[OldTrees1]

"The car was already sputtering a bit and occasionally needed to be spot-fixed for oil leaks, so I'm not too worried that the oil tank has been unscrewed and left to rattle around loosely," sounds like a similar sentiment, to me.

???
I don't see a comparable change in magnitude. If anything the balance flattened.

I considered Half Elf to be one of the strongest species pre-Tashas. At worst it was worth 6 point buy, Darkvision, and good options for Half-Elf Versatility (+2 skills, Cantrip, Mask of the Wild). Post-Tashas not much changed. Half Elf is still one of the strongest species. Now they are 8 point buy at worst.

Since the species that were among the strongest species did not stop being among the strongest, the strongest species barely got better, and some of the weakest did improve, then I suspect the imbalance decreased.

[MaxWilson]

Since the species that were among the strongest species did not stop being among the strongest, the strongest species barely got better, and some of the weakest did improve, then I suspect the imbalance decreased.

Well that's controversial and a matter of opinion. I'd say goblins were among the strongest species before, and under Tasha's rules goblin wizards got much better (by about a feat/ASI). Ditto Aarakocra wizards or sorlocks and Yuan-ti of almost any class. If races like Dragonborn and Tritons were bad in a given niche before, now they are relatively worse in those niches. The gap between strongest and weakest has widened.

It didn't widen by that much, only by approximately the value of a feat/ASI, because honestly +1-2 ability score points either way doesn't make all that much difference to a guy like me who grew up with Athasian half-giants that with Strength scores 10-13 Strength higher than halflings (and got double HP) instead of just 1-2 points, but it did widen it. A PC which might have made sense, maybe, as a Dragonborn paladin before (e.g. maybe he rolled Str 14, Cha 16) is just so much stronger as a Yuan-ti with +1 Str, +2 Cha instead of +1 Int, +2 Cha.

[OldTrees1]

Well that's controversial and a matter of opinion. I'd say goblins were among the strongest species before, and under Tasha's rules goblin wizards got much better (by about a feat/ASI). Ditto Aarakocra wizards or sorlocks and Yuan-ti of almost any class. If races like Dragonborn and Tritons were bad in a given niche before, now they are relatively worse in those niches. The gap between strongest and weakest has widened.

It didn't widen by that much, only by approximately the value of a feat/ASI, because honestly +1-2 ability score points either way doesn't make all that much difference to a guy like me who grew up with Athasian half-giants that with Strength scores 10-13 Strength higher than halflings (and got double HP) instead of just 1-2 points, but it did widen it. A PC which might have made sense, maybe, as a Dragonborn paladin before (e.g. maybe he rolled Str 14, Cha 16) is just so much stronger as a Yuan-ti with +1 Str, +2 Cha instead of +1 Int, +2 Cha.

You consider pre-Tasha Goblins to be one of the strongest species for Wizard?
Would you consider a +1 Str, +1 Wis, +1 Cha variant Triton to be one of the weakest species for Wizard?

pre Tasha Goblins get +2 Dex and +1 Con. For a Wizard that is 15 Int, 14 Con, 14-16 Dex.
post Tashas Goblins would probably get 16-17 Int, 14 Con, 14 Dex.
Goblin went from 5-7 point buy to 8 point buy.
A +1 Str/Wis/Cha variant Triton would be 3 point buy (15/14/14) but increase to 7-8 point buy (16-17/14/14).

Sounds like the weaker the species the more it gained. Even if the Goblin gained 1-3 points (so roughly 1 Feat/ASI) the variant Triton gained 4-5 points (so roughly 1.5 Feats/ASIs). Many species got stronger, and overall I think the gap shrunk (but became even more resilient too).

Of course there is probably some mid power Wizard Species that already had +2 Int and +1 Con and weak features. They don't gain but they were in the middle of the pack. While they would be relatively weaker, I doubt they will widen the overall balance.

[MaxWilson]

You consider pre-Tasha Goblins to be one of the strongest species for Wizard?

Yeah, especially Hexvokers and the like. Having a strong bonus action to go with your spellcasting action generally matters more than +2 to Int, and Fury of the Small and the ability to ride Medium mounts don't hurt either.


Would you consider a +1 Str, +1 Wis, +1 Cha variant Triton to be one of the weakest species for Wizard?

Sure, if it existed it would be bottom of the barrel. Would expect it be very rare, played primarily for the waterbreathing.


pre Tasha Goblins get +2 Dex and +1 Con. For a Wizard that is 15 Int, 14 Con, 14-16 Dex.
post Tashas Goblins would probably get 16-17 Int, 14 Con, 14 Dex.
Goblin went from 5-7 point buy to 8 point buy.
A +1 Str/Wis/Cha variant Triton would be 3 point buy (15/14/14) but increase to 7-8 point buy (16-17/14/14).

Sounds like the weaker the species the more it gained. Even if the Goblin gained 1-3 points (so roughly 1 Feat/ASI) the variant Triton gained 4-5 points (so roughly 1.5 Feats/ASIs). Many species got stronger, and overall I think the gap shrunk (but became even more resilient too).

Of course there is probably some mid power Wizard Species that already had +2 Int and +1 Con and weak features. They don't gain but they were in the middle of the pack. While they would be relatively weaker, I doubt they will widen the overall balance.

The variant Triton doesn't exist, though, it's just hypothetical. Furthermore, I disagree with your methodology. The hypothetical variant Triton has a lower base strength, so even if he gets to re-shuffle his attributes he remains weak and undesirable, with little to offer besides waterbreathing, but the Goblin effectively gets his level 12 feat at level 8 (e.g. he can get Skulker early and still get Int 20 by level 8, with average stat rolls).

To put hypothetical numbers on it, if the Goblin jumps from 15% of all wizards in a campaign to 25% of all wizards in a campaign while the Triton jumps from 1% to 1.5%, the Goblin is gaining more as I measure it--the gap is widening. Clearly you'd prefer to measure things less w/rt a different yardstick, and it's certainly possible for your yardstick to give opposite results to my yardstick, which means we're talking about different things.

[diplomancer]

You consider pre-Tasha Goblins to be one of the strongest species for Wizard?
Would you consider a +1 Str, +1 Wis, +1 Cha variant Triton to be one of the weakest species for Wizard?

pre Tasha Goblins get +2 Dex and +1 Con. For a Wizard that is 15 Int, 14 Con, 14-16 Dex.
post Tashas Goblins would probably get 16-17 Int, 14 Con, 14 Dex.
Goblin went from 5-7 point buy to 8 point buy.
A +1 Str/Wis/Cha variant Triton would be 3 point buy (15/14/14) but increase to 7-8 point buy (16-17/14/14).

Sounds like the weaker the species the more it gained. Even if the Goblin gained 1-3 points (so roughly 1 Feat/ASI) the variant Triton gained 4-5 points (so roughly 1.5 Feats/ASIs). Many species got stronger, and overall I think the gap shrunk (but became even more resilient too).

Of course there is probably some mid power Wizard Species that already had +2 Int and +1 Con and weak features. They don't gain but they were in the middle of the pack. While they would be relatively weaker, I doubt they will widen the overall balance.

Pre-Tasha's goblin was one of the strongest species for wizards , despite not having an Int bonus, because it's racial features are particularly good for wizards (the bonus action one, specially so), so that it was still somewhat worth it to be one even without the Int bonus. Tritons? Ok, one extra casting of Fog Cloud is useful (the other spells are more situational), but it can't really compare.

[OldTrees1]

Yeah, especially Hexvokers and the like. Having a strong bonus action to go with your spellcasting action generally matters more than +2 to Int, and Fury of the Small and the ability to ride Medium mounts don't hurt either.
Makes sense. I just wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand when you went from general to specific. I did not want to misrepresent you.




Sure, if it existed it would be bottom of the barrel. Would expect it be very rare, played primarily for the waterbreathing.


The variant Triton doesn't exist, though, it's just hypothetical.
True. The actual Triton goes from 4 points to 7-8 points which is an increase of 3-4 points (maybe 1.25 ASI?).


Furthermore, I disagree with your methodology. The hypothetical variant Triton has a lower base strength, so even if he gets to re-shuffle his attributes he remains weak and undesirable, with little to offer besides waterbreathing, but the Goblin effectively gets his level 12 feat at level 8 (e.g. he can get Skulker early and still get Int 20 by level 8, with average stat rolls).
Are you sure you are disagreeing with me? The hypothetical variant Triton went from the worst to "still the worst". It just gained more than Goblin by my estimate. However it started much further behind Goblin. Even the normal Triton is at 4 point buy to Goblins 5-7. The post Tasha's normal Triton gets to 7-8 point buy. In ASIs alone the pre Tasha's Goblin is can be comparable to the post Tasha's Triton ASIs.

I am arguing the gap shrank. I am not arguing everything it balanced. You are right that the Goblin features are well suited to Wizard and +2 Int/+1 Con is a bit better than +1 Int/+1 Con/+1 Dex. I even agree with your predictions below.


To put hypothetical numbers on it, if the Goblin jumps from 15% of all wizards in a campaign to 25% of all wizards in a campaign while the Triton jumps from 1% to 1.5%, the Goblin is gaining more as I measure it--the gap is widening. Clearly you'd prefer to measure things less w/rt a different yardstick, and it's certainly possible for your yardstick to give opposite results to my yardstick, which means we're talking about different things.

I agree with those hypothetical numbers (well, maybe Triton would jump from 1.5% to 1%). Despite my claim that the imbalance is shrinking, I expect the usage to polarize.

Edit:
Now I think it is obvious why I expect usage to be more polarized post Tashas despite calculating a decrease in imbalance. The majority of the remaining imbalance is from noncomparable features. Goblins bonus action vs Triton water breathing? Which will people gravitate towards for ritual casting Wizards?

[MaxWilson]

Are you sure you are disagreeing with me?

Yes, because you're using a metric I disagree with. For example, your metric would predict that a hypothetical race which gains +4 to every ability score under 10, but has no other features, is quite strong: even if you're using point buy, that still lets you play a 15/15/15/12/12/12 array, for a gain of 12 point buy points.

I on the other hand think that hypothetical race is quite weak, because tertiary stats just don't usually matter much.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, because you're using a metric I disagree with. For example, your metric would predict that a hypothetical race which gains +4 to every ability score under 10, but has no other features, is quite strong: even if you're using point buy, that still lets you play a 15/15/15/12/12/12 array, for a gain of 12 point buy points.

I on the other hand think that hypothetical race is quite weak, because tertiary stats just don't usually matter much.

No. That is not my metric.

My metric would say that species gained nothing from Tashas. My comment about point buy was just about the increase in points from the different ASIs. They went from 12 point buy (or less depending on how to penalize quaternary stats) to the identical 12 point buy. That is a 0 point increase (which makes the size of the quaternary penalty irrelevant). Roughly 0 Feats/ASIs from this change. So however weak this species was pre Tashas, that is exactly how weak it would be post Tashas.

I was comparing Goblins vs Goblins so I only measured the part that changed (the ASIs). As you said they gained roughly 1 Feat/ASI.

Edit: Sidenote if you penalize quaternary stats, then it makes the weakest species look like they gained even more. I thought that would be an unfair advantage to my claim.

[Paladin777]

While many of the weakest races got a little bit of a bump, it's not even close to the bump that Tasha's really created some races that truly stand-out better than the rest. Mountain dwarf and Tortle (which were decent choices for martials before, but made mediocre-at-best casters) are practically god-tier for casters (as has been said before: Mountain dwarf for 2x +2 mods and medium armor, and now the tortle can straight-up ignore dex, making it the only true 2-stat caster in the game!) and apparently there are races like the yuan-ti that are supposedly even better! Since the mighty got so much mightier (and often in many ways that they weren't before) and the least only went up a little bit, I'd say that this made things worse.

This is all before we even start talking about being able to trade away skills etc.

The rich got richer.

The only near god-tier race that didn't get substantially better was the half-elf, but that's only because it's ability score mods were already pretty flexible, and because cha was already the most valuable casting stat in many ways!

[Witty Username]

I disagree with pre Tasha's mountain dwarf being considered any form of god tier, it went from the cutting room floor to on the table.

[Ettina]

Pre-Tasha's goblin was one of the strongest species for wizards , despite not having an Int bonus, because it's racial features are particularly good for wizards (the bonus action one, specially so), so that it was still somewhat worth it to be one even without the Int bonus. Tritons? Ok, one extra casting of Fog Cloud is useful (the other spells are more situational), but it can't really compare.

I'd never considered that before, but I'm playing a goblin wizard now, chosen for RP reasons, and I'm actually really enjoying Nimble Escape. Even if he only has a +1 to Stealth, he still successfully hides often enough that it's a solid defensive option. Disengage comes up less often, but when it does it's totally clutch.

[Dork_Forge]

I disagree with pre Tasha's mountain dwarf being considered any form of god tier, it went from the cutting room floor to on the table.

+2 to two stats

Light/Medium armor and weapons

Poison resistance, with poison being an extremely common damage type

The ability to ignore speed penalties from heavy armor (effectively speed -5 instead of -10 when you dump Str)

Darkvision

A bunch of proficiencies and a ribbon skill bump

What about this package isn't very good to you? Medium armor alone on any of the classes that don't get it is a huge boon.

[LudicSavant]

I disagree with pre Tasha's mountain dwarf being considered any form of god tier, it went from the cutting room floor to on the table.

Witty Username is right. Pre-Tasha's Mountain Dwarf was not an optimal pick for any class. Not even close to god tier.

For a Strength-based class, the weapon and armor proficiencies are meaningless. It's just Poison Resistance (a common monster damage type, but also a particularly easy resistance to get from other sources), a base movement speed penalty (always important, but especially so to melee characters), and an extra +1 bonus to Con. That's it. That's not even close to the top tier pre-Tasha's races.

For any of the classes that actually benefit from the weapon and armor proficiencies, it's essentially an ASI behind the competition (or 2 ASIs behind a Vhuman). And you know what you could get with those ASIs? Better defenses than the Mountain Dwarf's armor proficiency!

For Wizard, Hobgoblin was a real standout here. But even a VHuman taking Lightly Armored + Moderately Armored was arguably better than a Mountain Dwarf -- they would have +1 Int / +1 Con / +2 Dex, medium armor and a shield proficiency by the time the Mountain Dwarf had +2 Con / +2 Int... so the Mountain Dwarf would basically be down a shield proficiency (which is a bigger deal than the medium armor). And it would have a base movement speed penalty, and the easiest Resistance to get.

And of course, Hobgoblin was considerably better than a VHuman doing that. They would end up with +2 Con / +1 Int / +1 Dex and shield proficiency by the same point, but they'd also get the fantastic Saving Face ability.

[MaxWilson]

I'd never considered that before, but I'm playing a goblin wizard now, chosen for RP reasons, and I'm actually really enjoying Nimble Escape. Even if he only has a +1 to Stealth, he still successfully hides often enough that it's a solid defensive option. Disengage comes up less often, but when it does it's totally clutch.

A Hexvoker Skulker goblin has some additional fun options that normal wizards don't, including net-throwing instead of cantrips (being hidden lets you actually gain advantage with a net and not have it be cancelled out by disadvantage from being within 5' of a non-incapacitated hostile that can see you) and using Sword Burst + Nimble Escape to AoE mobs without taking opportunity attacks. Also it's nice to have the option of Invisibility + Nimble Escape (Hide) for defense--most wizards have to Hide on a separate round which is much weaker.

Missing out on +Int is too bad, because it effectively means you miss out on ASIs, and adding Skulker makes it even more expensive, but it's still an extremely fun and powerful race for wizarding even with just PHB + Xanathar's + Volo's.

[Paladin777]

Most of you seem to have failed to notice that I said that mountain dwarves has BECOME god-tier for CASTERS, AFTER Tasha's! Medium armor plus an easy 8, 14, 17, 17, 10, 8 array at first level and they're set! I was NOT referring to them being god tier for melee characters. Though the ability to trade out the proficiencies has made them shine much brighter in that role as well though!

[Eldariel]

Most of you seem to have failed to notice that I said that mountain dwarves has BECOME god-tier for CASTERS, AFTER Tasha's! Medium armor plus an easy 8, 14, 17, 17, 10, 8 array at first level and they're set! I was NOT referring to them being god tier for melee characters. Though the ability to trade out the proficiencies has made them shine much brighter in that role as well though!

With Tasha's, they are solid for arcane casters. The ability to switch weaponproficiencies means you can get Heavies or Bows or Rapiers too, which can be good for gishy types and low levels.

However, Hobgoblin, Githyanki and Elves are still competitive in that niche and in general, Feat races and Half-Elves are very competitive with them overall. But yes, everyone acknowledges that they are a solid arcane caster race with Tasha's. Still not necessarily god tier though; medium armor without shield proficiency is nice but nothing earth-shattering.

[Paladin777]

With Tasha's, they are solid for arcane casters. The ability to switch weaponproficiencies means you can get Heavies or Bows or Rapiers too, which can be good for gishy types and low levels.

However, Hobgoblin, Githyanki and Elves are still competitive in that niche and in general, Feat races and Half-Elves are very competitive with them overall. But yes, everyone acknowledges that they are a solid arcane caster race with Tasha's. Still not necessarily god tier though; medium armor without shield proficiency is nice but nothing earth-shattering.

Plus dark vision and poison resistance. It's also the only race that can have full 17 AC in half plate, an 18 casting stat, plus 18 con at level 4 (using standard point buy which the game is balanced around, and how my DM prefers to run). That's freaking powerful! Sure, there's a few races that can compete and I'll acknowledge that, but there are far more than won't ever come close. That's where I see the problem.

[Eldariel]

Plus dark vision and poison resistance. It's also the only race that can have full 17 AC in half plate, an 18 casting stat, plus 18 con at level 4 (using standard point buy which the game is balanced around, and how my DM prefers to run). That's freaking powerful! Sure, there's a few races that can compete and I'll acknowledge that, but there are far more than won't ever come close. That's where I see the problem.

I think level 4 18/18 with Half-Plate is kinda suboptimal though. 18 Con and 18 Int means you can't get full mileage out of Resilient: Con (since you even your Con without taking it), which you are really interested in especially if you are frontline and have high Con. Already on level 5 that means you're at only +4 Con save instead of +7 leaving you with a 25% fail rate instead of 10%.

[Paladin777]

Suboptimal for a wizard or sorcerer!?

OK, then take a half feat for intelligence at level 4 and resilience for constitution at level eight then. Or for that matter, start with 16 con and use those two extra buying points to get 12 wisdom. I'm not seeing the problem here.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but being able to have 18's in both your primary and secondary score so early into level progression, (and barely even having a tertiary score) is nowhere near suboptimal! Having points to spare will never be a 'problem,' and dwarf has that!

Or if you want, you can go hill dwarf and have 8, 14, 17, 18, 10, 8 at level 4 and take resilience con at lvl 8 that way. Plus, your HP will rival the party's barbarian!


Already on level 5 that means you're at only +4 Con save instead of +7 leaving you with a 25% fail rate instead of 10%.

What kind of DC's are you rolling against?

Also, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take resilience con before bumping my casting stat to a +4 modifier anyway.

[Eldariel]

Oh certainly, Mountain Dwarf is good, nobody is denying that. I just don't think the reason is the ability to get 18/18 on level 4, because I don't think that's as good as getting Res: Con in the first place. I also don't think Mountain Dwarf is above competition in any way, though it's certainly a very, very solid choice. I think the real value is in getting an Int half-feat instead of +2 Int: this means Shadow-Touched, Fey-Touched or Telekinetic, all of which are nice if not crazy good, and the biggest drawback in addition to opportunity cost is the 25' movement speed (which is a significant drawback too).

EDIT: Regarding your assessment, I don't think they really make any options obsolete. Elves are relevant by virtue of Elven Accuracy (which has a few used even for a dedicated caster, notably Spirit Shroud/Scorching Ray builds and later many Shapechange uses), flyers are relevant for obvious reasons, Hobgoblins get a notable trait vs. MD in Saving Face and Feat races, Goblin, Tortle, etc. have the same niche as ever. Then there are the Dragonmarked races obviously as a semibroken option.

The only big difference to pre-Tasha is that MD and Half-Elf are worth talking about for all classes, and niche races are significantly stronger. And the Dragonmarked are borderline broken for casters.

[Paladin777]

And I'm not denying that there aren't others that are on its level, it's merely the only one that I know off the top of my head (without looking at books). However, it, and the couple others (yuan-ti, half-elf, etc) outshine the rest by a tremendous amount! That's the problem. From an optimization standpoint, when the dwarf options (and the couple others) are on the table, there's not much point in picking other more traditional wizarding classes like elves. (Gnomes advantage against spells never goes out of style... though putting that on a defense fighting style sword & boarder does make for one of the hardest tanks to put down, especially if it's a Paladin! 21 AC in plate plus advantage on saving throws agains spells and cha to saves! I guess we've got another god-tier race for tanking! 😆)

I have a hard time seeing 25 speed being much of an issue for a casting class. It's not like they want to be in the front line!

[Paladin777]

I guess the tell for me as to when a race/class combo is overpowered is when you get everything you could want and don't have to sacrifice anything of value.

I think the dwarf wizard epitomizes this the most. What's a wizard's biggest struggle (from what I've seen on the tabletop)? survivability. What doesn't a dwarf wizard have to worry about without sacrificing any offensive power? Survivability.

If you want to argue that martials already had that, I'll point out that only fighters have that and I guess rogues to a point (barbarians, rangers, and paladins most effective options can be quite MAD), and once mid-late game starts kicking in the martials have been struggling to keep up already.

[Eldariel]

And I'm not denying that there aren't others that are on its level, it's merely the only one that I know off the top of my head (without looking at books). However, it, and the couple others (yuan-ti, half-elf, etc) outshine the rest by a tremendous amount! That's the problem. From an optimization standpoint, when the dwarf options (and the couple others) are on the table, there's not much point in picking other more traditional wizarding classes like elves. (Gnomes advantage against spells never goes out of style... though putting that on a defense fighting style sword & boarder does make for one of the hardest tanks to put down, especially if it's a Paladin! 21 AC in plate plus advantage on saving throws agains spells and cha to saves! I guess we've got another god-tier race for tanking! 😆)

I have a hard time seeing 25 speed being much of an issue for a casting class. It's not like they want to be in the front line!

25' speed is an issue specifically because you don't want to be in the frontline. It means that e.g. your 60' spells can be cast ending the turn only 70' away instead of 75' consistently, that 30' enemies can easily reach you with a dash; that you will be the one caught if your party must retreat, etc. In short, it makes it harder to position yourself so that you are not available to enemy melee, in AOEs (especially cones like breath weapons or mindblasts), etc. It matters surprisingly much if intelligent enemies do their best to fight smart. Of course, you've got armor to dissuade melee attackers, but 17 AC in half-plate vs. 16 AC with Mage Armor + 16 Dex isn't actually that big of an edge. Shield (the item) is the big win AC-wise.

All Elves have their niche as Wizards for example. Half-Elf is often the best but true elves do get Trance (which can be made to do a fair bit), extra skill (Perception can be any skill with Tasha's), similar Weapon Training and some unique perk most of which can be made work for Wizards. And then Elven Accuracy, which I touched upon already. Less raw stats than a dwarf but not a bad pick given the right build. Indeed, I could easily see a set of Wizard builds where every Elf variant is superior to, or at least competitive with Mountain Dwarf.


I guess the tell for me as to when a race/class combo is overpowered is when you get everything you could want and don't have to sacrifice anything of value.

I think the dwarf wizard epitomizes this the most. What's a wizard's biggest struggle (from what I've seen on the tabletop)? survivability. What doesn't a dwarf wizard have to worry about without sacrificing any offensive power? Survivability.

If you want to argue that martials already had that, I'll point out that only fighters have that and I guess rogues to a point (barbarians, rangers, and paladins most effective options can be quite MAD), and once mid-late game starts kicking in the martials have been struggling to keep up already.

Sure, Dwarf Wizard is survivable. What do they sacrifice though? Inevitably another form of survivability. Flying and fast races have survivability from being hard to reach. Feat races have survivability from Alert or Lucky or similar making them able to take down enemy before enemy gets to them. Elves get (some) survivability from Trance making them far harder to catch off-guard resting and more able to generate downtime resources/items to use for making yourself again harder to reach. Hobgoblins have a huge save bonus, and saves are generally more important than AC survivability-wise (the things that are gonna drop you in one hit? Vast majority of the time they use a save, not an attack roll; and if they result of an attack roll, that's generally a crit for which AC doesn't matter though HP will of course).

Also compared to all of those, they do sacrifice mobility. Which is, again, a form of survivability. Basically everything (offense, defense, utility; HP, damage, control; AC, saves, resistances/immunities; mobility, durability, alacrity) contributes towards your survivability and thus races tend to get it just in different forms. Mountain Dwarf is indeed able to get shield proficiency with a feat and has great base Con (though any race with +2/+1 to stat can start with 17 Con/16 Int if they want to opening up Res: Con leaving the difference not in HP but in the Int half-feat and Dex in this case) and good resistances but it's easier to reach than most other races, it doesn't have meaningful save advantages [aside from poison again], it's worse at remaining unnoticed than basically all the other races, and it's somewhat worse than average at disabling enemy before they get a chance to act. Overall? Sounds solid. Fine. Good, even. But most higher tier races seem fine by comparison.

[Paladin777]

Elven accuracy, while not completely wasted, is a lot less impressive on a wizard due to an abundance of their most powerful stuff relying on enemy as opposed to a rogue or some other class that rolls attack rolls every turn (or even better, has a way to get advantage on-tap like vengeance paladins or samurai).

Also, do any of the races give shield proficiency? I don't actually know of the top of my head. If not, then not having a shield for a racial proficiency is really a moot point because every race has that problem. Plus, the elf needs to spend more points on Dex, (and consequently less on con), and a spell every day to still fall short of the dwarf in terms of AC and hit points. The elf is still not even close to winning here. And if the speed is that much of an issue, then pick up mobile at some point with one of the feats that you'll certainly be able to afford (seriously, ASI's and you don't need any more, ever).

You mentioned half-elf, but I already admitted that those were god-tier and probably should have been nerfed a little out of the gate (maybe only one floating ability bump or something like that). Pre-Tasha they were one of, if not the best race for cha full-casting classes (which is about half of them plus Paladin), but now they're top tier at every single class, and that's without even trading in racial abilities (not scores). For instance, once the 8th level ASI (6 for fighters), anything the Vuman can do, the half elf can do and then some. That's not very balanced.

[Eldariel]

Elven accuracy, while not completely wasted, is a lot less impressive on a wizard due to an abundance of their most powerful stuff relying on enemy as opposed to a rogue or some other class that rolls attack rolls every turn (or even better, has a way to get advantage on-tap like vengeance paladins or samurai).

Between familiar, many illusions, Shadow Blade, Tenser's and company, Wizard is surprisingly good at generating Advantage if they so desire. But yes, Elven Accuracy isn't of course a top tier feat for casters unless you're built for it specifically. A caster built for attacking can get plenty of mileage out of it though, be it a Bladesinger or an Evoker.


Also, do any of the races give shield proficiency? I don't actually know of the top of my head. If not, then not having a shield for a racial proficiency is really a moot point because every race has that problem. Plus, the elf needs to spend more points on Dex, (and consequently less on con), and a spell every day to still fall short of the dwarf in terms of AC and hit points. The elf is still not even close to winning here. And if the speed is that much of an issue, then pick up mobile at some point with one of the feats that you'll certainly be able to afford (seriously, ASI's and you don't need any more, ever).

No race has shield proficiency: my point was mostly to highlight the fact that you generally want to take Moderately Armored anyways whether you only have light or medium armor proficiency, since that's where the AC lies (that's the money option for races with armor proficiencies to get something substantial out of it). And as we've seen, those ASIs are pretty cramped.

Speaking of ASIs, Dwarf can't afford Mobile any time soon: you've got your first 2 ASIs locked if they want to make use of those +2s (Res: Con, +1 Int half-feat) so it'd be by level 12. That's 11 levels to spend without it and it still comes at the cost of not picking up Alert or Lucky or 20 Int or similar. ASIs are huge for everyone in this game specifically because they are so sparse.

It's true that Dwarf has better point buy but the Dex the Elf buys is worth it for other things too: Initiative, Dex-saves, Stealth, and 1-4 Dextrip use (Light Crossbow outdamages all Wizard cantrips in that level range and can benefit of Familiar Help too) are all pretty significant. I do think Mountain Dwarf is probably a stronger generalist than Elves, but each Elf does have a niche where it outperforms Mountain Dwarf.


You mentioned half-elf, but I already admitted that those were god-tier and probably should have been nerfed a little out of the gate (maybe only one floating ability bump or something like that). Pre-Tasha they were one of, if not the best race for cha full-casting classes (which is about half of them plus Paladin), but now they're top tier at every single class, and that's without even trading in racial abilities (not scores). For instance, once the 8th level ASI (6 for fighters), anything the Vuman can do, the half elf can do and then some. That's not very balanced.

Half-Elf and Vuman are comparable even post-Tasha's. Vuman is essentially +3/+1 (though best feats are better than +2 stat where relevant) vs. Half-Elf's +2/+1/+1, Darkvision and +1 skill. And primary stat is way more important than tertiary stat for basically all characters.

To explain my position, if I were to build a Wizard for a very difficult campaign and I wanted to optimise, I see few options that are as strong and well-rounded as 8/15/15/15/8/8 (8/16/15/16/8/8) Vuman Wizard going Alert > Lucky > Res: Con over the first 3 ASIs. Yes, low Wis sucks and yes, not getting 20 Int before 16 sucks, but I think I gain comparatively more survivability and utility out of those 3 feats than I would out of most races. The only question mark are the flying races: flight is so strong that in certain types of campaigns they just straight-up negate all other options.

[Paladin777]

I suppose I just prioritize getting my main stat to 18 over any feats that aren't necessary for getting the overall build online and working (GWM for great weapon barbarian, elven accuracy for a Paladin crit-fisher, pole arm master, etc.). I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree because I think I just realized that we simply value different things in our builds, and that might be remnants of what occurs at the table.

In a point buy game I would never even consider taking 3 feats before using an ASI on ability score increases. I just feel like I'd be way too far behind the curve.

[Eldariel]

I suppose I just prioritize getting my main stat to 18 over any feats that aren't necessary for getting the overall build online and working (GWM for great weapon barbarian, elven accuracy for a Paladin crit-fisher, pole arm master, etc.). I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree because I think I just realized that we simply value different things in our builds, and that might be remnants of what occurs at the table.

In a point buy game I would never even consider taking 3 feats before using an ASI on ability score increases. I just feel like I'd be way too far behind the curve.

For me that depends a lot on the class. With Wizard, I've got a lot of options that simply don't care about my casting stat (Minor Illusion, Sleep, Haste, Sleet Storm [okay, it has a save but I really don't care if they make it or not], Animate Dead, Tiny Servant, Polymorph , Wall of Force, Animate Object, etc.) and ways to tip the odds in my favour for the effects that do (target a sufficient number of enemies, use Portent or Chronal Shift, pick "yes-but" spells that have an effect even on successful save [Dragon's Breath, Web, Grease, etc.], Lucky rerolls for Counterspell/Dispel Magic, etc.) so while I care about casting stat, I don't prioritise it as high as high value survivability effects for high danger campaign. I can simply turn to effects where I don't mind that much.

E.g. when the party gets ambushed by say...4 Ropers, the 5pp difference in their chance to fail save vs. e.g. Hypnotic Pattern or Web (my go-to answers in such a situation provided we're level 5 and the enemies are positioned appropriately) is much less relevant than the immunity to surprise and +5 to Initiative to be able to land AOE CC before the Ropers get to act. That's a potentially party ending encounter, but if you get to act first, chances are going to be that you can turn it around before the party gets annihilated. Same with e.g. the Priests of Eternal Flame encounter in Princes of the Apocalypse: you basically [B]need to go first if they get warning since otherwise there's a very significant chance of the party getting Fireballed to death. It might be somewhat different if I were e.g. building an Evoker where basically all of my actions will proc the save, but I generally value Initiative and not getting surprised and landing my Counterspells and making key saves more reliably over an extra spell prepared and a slight improvement in spell reliability.


Now, if I were building e.g. a Cleric who has less encounter ending power and more stat-based attacks and repeated saves and less nova, I would be more inclined to take +4 Wis before feats, even the good ones. It's all about how well the feats synergise with the build. Even with a Cleric, I'd certainly consider War Caster before bonuses since the OA spell part is so huge for Cleric and spell Concentration is obviously massive.

[Tanarii]

I disagree with pre Tasha's mountain dwarf being considered any form of god tier, it went from the cutting room floor to on the table.
Medium armor alone made them very worth of consideration just PHB for many characters, even with a throwaway in +2 Str. Some leveraged the Str too (warlocks and rogues especially).

If all characters can put that Str into whatever they want, it becomes one of the best choices for sorcerers and Wizards and Bards and non-Str warlocks as well.

The value doesn't change much for characters that want Str/Con. It was valuable before and it's valuable now. Helps a little with Paladins if they want Cha instead of Con, or StRangers that want Wis instead of Con.

[Dork_Forge]

To explain my position, if I were to build a Wizard for a very difficult campaign and I wanted to optimise, I see few options that are as strong and well-rounded as 8/15/15/15/8/8 (8/16/15/16/8/8) Vuman Wizard going Alert > Lucky > Res: Con over the first 3 ASIs. Yes, low Wis sucks and yes, not getting 20 Int before 16 sucks, but I think I gain comparatively more survivability and utility out of those 3 feats than I would out of most races. The only question mark are the flying races: flight is so strong that in certain types of campaigns they just straight-up negate all other options.

Wait,so for a very hard campaign you're preferred statline would be hard dumping half of the stat line and sitting on a useless odd Con for 7 levels?

You criticised Paladin777s approach of a Mountain Dwarf with a +4 Con because it would have a lower concentration checks, yet that build would have a higher Con save until 8th level comparatively (assuming Res:Con wasn't taken anyway with an aim to take +5 Con) with a higher max hp and end up as a better Wizard for a lot of too (Higher Int until Tier 4).

[OldTrees1]

I know people are focusing on the Mountain Dwarf armor proficiency but consider another angle:


Half Elf is +2/+1/+1 ASIs, Darkvision, +2 skill proficiencies, +2 language (and adv vs charm I guess)
Mountain Dwarf is +2/+2 ASIs, Darkvision, +5 tool proficiencies, +1 language (and armor proficiency I guess)
High Elf is +2/+1, Darkvision, +4 tool proficiencies, +1 skill proficiency, +1 cantrip, +2 languages (and both trance and adv vs charm I guess)

Different characters will look at species differently

[Eldariel]

Wait,so for a very hard campaign you're preferred statline would be hard dumping half of the stat line and sitting on a useless odd Con for 7 levels?

You criticised Paladin777s approach of a Mountain Dwarf with a +4 Con because it would have a lower concentration checks, yet that build would have a higher Con save until 8th level comparatively (assuming Res:Con wasn't taken anyway with an aim to take +5 Con) with a higher max hp and end up as a better Wizard for a lot of too (Higher Int until Tier 4).

:smallconfused: Of course the build that focuses on raw stats at the expense of party utility and survivability is going to have more raw stats. Does that really need stating?

As for why I prefer those feats over raw stats: Lucky generally tends to Concentration needs a fair amount of time early, which is why I'd take it before then. The number of times it's not gonna be available and you'd need a boost is not high enough to warrant picking Res: Con instead when Lucky also works with Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Initiative, and other saves. When you have Lucky charges left, you're looking at +5ish level Con or +7 overall - and since you only need to burn it when you fail the check otherwise, 3 uses is surprisingly much even for long days.

If a campaign is high danger, the best protection is prevention and thus acting first and landing that first strike is way more important than safeguarding Concentration or getting more HP or in general, other secondary concerns. Yes, I think hard dumping other stats is ideal far as optimality goes. Getting +2 to a quarternary stat in exchange to dropping down to 14 Con and not having the option for Res: Con on 8 is probably not going to matter often enough for you to care. Yes, obviously you'd want more Wis for Wis saves but you do have some layers of defense for those (proficiency + Lucky & potentially Counterspell in some cases).

[Dork_Forge]

:smallconfused: Of course the build that focuses on raw stats at the expense of party utility and survivability is going to have more raw stats. Does that really need stating?

Alert, Res:Con, and Lucky are not utility feats.

You can have good stats without having to hard dump half of them.


As for why I prefer those feats over raw stats: Lucky generally tends to Concentration needs a fair amount of time early, which is why I'd take it before then. The number of times it's not gonna be available and you'd need a boost is not high enough to warrant picking Res: Con instead when Lucky also works with Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Initiative, and other saves. When you have Lucky charges left, you're looking at +5ish level Con or +7 overall - and since you only need to burn it when you fail the check otherwise, 3 uses is surprisingly much even for long days.

If a campaign is high danger, the best protection is prevention and thus acting first and landing that first strike is way more important than safeguarding Concentration or getting more HP or in general, other secondary concerns. Yes, I think hard dumping other stats is ideal far as optimality goes. Getting +2 to a quarternary stat in exchange to dropping down to 14 Con and not having the option for Res: Con on 8 is probably not going to matter often enough for you to care. Yes, obviously you'd want more Wis for Wis saves but you do have some layers of defense for those (proficiency + Lucky & potentially Counterspell in some cases).

Your stance on Lucky is having your cake and eating it too. You only get 3 Luck points, spending them on anything else but Con saves means you can't rely on having them for Con saves. It's even possible to have to burn through all 3 points in a single combat if it's on the tougher end and dice fall unfortunately, it just isn't enough points to rely on.

A lot of this is a self fulfilling prophecy, the -1 Wis is going to basically cancel out having prof in the first place and leave you equivalent to anyone that didn't dump Wis as a stat. Even if you grab Perception prof your passive is going to be low enough that you're more likely to need the surprise clause of Alert.

In this specific comparison, a lower AC leaves you burning Shields to compensate and making more concentration saves than the higher AC M Dwarf. (I assume you wouldn't be taking Dex to +4)


The argument of utility I find odd and is probably just drastically different idea of what utility is, imo more utility comes from having more spells prepared, and not having to prepare and fuel Mage Armor. The increased effectiveness of your spells is gravy.

[Paladin777]

I know people are focusing on the Mountain Dwarf armor proficiency but consider another angle:


Half Elf is +2/+1/+1 ASIs, Darkvision, +2 skill proficiencies, +2 language (and adv vs charm I guess)
Mountain Dwarf is +2/+2 ASIs, Darkvision, +5 tool proficiencies, +1 language (and armor proficiency I guess)
High Elf is +2/+1, Darkvision, +4 tool proficiencies, +1 skill proficiency, +1 cantrip, +2 languages (and both trance and adv vs charm I guess)

Different characters will look at species differently

I everyone currently arguing here agrees that half-elf is a god-tier race anyway. I think we've kinda lost focus along the way. We are all talking about some of the best casting races, but original post was talking about the disparity between the best and the worst. Dwarf has obviously become one of the best (I'm not even going to try arguing THE best, and I never really was), as is half-elf.

While many races can be usable (one of the beauties of 5e actually, I'm about to start playing a TWF Minotaur barbarian who plays the fiddle with the entertainer background and proficiency in persuasion, intimidate, and performance! I cranked her cha to 14 at character creation and while definitely not 'optimized,' I don't think it's going to lag behind too badly, and will be much more fun to roleplay than 'me big make puny things go bonk!'), some certainly shine far brighter than the others. That's the problem, and the point of the original post.

[Paladin777]

For what it's worth though, I tend to agree with Dork Forge.

You're preparing for a bunch of niche scenarios, whereas I tend to go for general utility and raw power. As the wizard/sorcerer, thats what I find my job to be. Leave the scouting/spotting to the people who are naturally good at that sort of thing, and always keep the squishies in the middle of the party where they're hard to get at! (Not that a Mt dwarf wizard/sorcerer is remotely squishy!)

[LudicSavant]

And I'm not denying that there aren't others that are on its level, it's merely the only one that I know off the top of my head (without looking at books). This sounds like the real problem: You don’t know the other races that are on a similar tier.


However, it, and the couple others (yuan-ti, half-elf, etc) outshine the rest by a tremendous amount! That's the problem.

Except that’s not really true. For example, almost every Elf subrace is competitive with Half-Elf and variant Half-Elf. They’re not “outshined by a tremendous amount.”

While this is especially true of the likes of Shadar-Kai, Eladrin, and Mark of Shadows elves (all top shelf races), it’s even true of the humble High Elf vs Half-High Elf. There are builds where tertiary stats aren’t worth that much, and you might instead like +1 skill, +4 tools, and Trance.

[Eldariel]

For what it's worth though, I tend to agree with Dork Forge.

You're preparing for a bunch of niche scenarios, whereas I tend to go for general utility and raw power.

I wouldn't call them niche - +5 Initiative and Surprise will give you a lot of extra first actions over the course of any given day, and Lucky will basically always find high value uses over a day. And you can make use of Alert's last clause by casting any vision denial spell (generally Fog Cloud or Pyrotechnics; Pyrotechnics later since it lacks Concentration). Individual situations may be niche but added together they all are quite frequent, at least in my experience.

That said, my philosophy is to especially prepare for cases where TPK is actually possible and the extra power is most needed. It is my experience that you generally don't need that much power in circumstances where you can control the terms of engagement, but the problems come especially when you get surprised, or lose Initiative, or face an extremely aberrant series of rolls in combat. As such, I generally pick options to alleviate those.

[Paladin777]

This sounds like the real problem: You don’t know the other races that are on a similar tier.



Except that’s not really true. For example, almost every Elf subrace is competitive with Half-Elf and variant Half-Elf. They’re not “outshined by a tremendous amount.”

While this is especially true of the likes of Shadar-Kai, Eladrin, and Mark of Shadows elves (all top shelf races), it’s even true of the humble High Elf vs Half-High Elf. There are builds where tertiary stats aren’t worth that much, and you might instead like +1 skill, +4 tools, and Trance.

Ok then, Perhaps elf is a top shelf race and I was remiss to mention it being subpar as compared to half elves and dwarves. What about races like Dragonborn and triton that aren't, for either casting or martial. It's this disparity between the best and worst that is the issue, not how effective the few top shelf races are, and that's my issue, as well as the point of the OP. I guess I just used a poor example (my group almost never plays elves for whatever reason. It's not like we really play other very exotic races either. The most exotic race in our last campaign was a teifling, and the most exotic in this campaign is my goblin ranger).

[LudicSavant]

Here are some examples of races that are not "outshined by a tremendous amount" by Half-Elves:

Aarakocra
Aasimar (Fallen)
Aasimar (Protector)
Aasimar (Scourge)
Changeling
Custom Lineage
Dhampir
Dwarf (Hill)
Dwarf (Mark of Warding)
Dwarf (Mountain)
Elf (Eladrin)
Elf (Mark of Shadow)
Elf (Shadar-kai)
Elf (Wood)
Elf (High)
Elf (Pallid)
Gith (Githyanki)
Gith (Githzerai)
Gnome (Deep/Svirfneblin)
Gnome (Mark of Scribing)
Goblin
Halfling (Ghostwise)
Halfling (Mark of Healing)
Halfling (Mark of Hospitality)
Hexblood
Hobgoblin
Half-Orc / Human (Mark of Finding)
Human (Mark of Handling)
Human (Mark of Passage)
Human (Mark of Sentinel)
Human (Variant)
Kalashtar
Loxodon
Leonin
Kobold
Reborn
Satyr
Simic Hybrid
Shifter (Beasthide)
Shifter (Longtooth)
Shifter (Swiftstride)
Shifter (Wildhunt)
Tabaxi
Tiefling (Levistus)
Tiefling (Variant; Winged)
Vedalken
Warforged
Yuan-ti Pureblood


Ok then, Perhaps elf is a top shelf race and I was remiss to mention it being subpar as compared to half elves and dwarves. What about races like Dragonborn and triton that aren't, for either casting or martial.

Races like Dragonborn were outshined before Tasha's did anything. That said, there is one niche that a Ravenite Dragonborn has post-Tasha's -- getting ranged, off-turn Reaction attacks for a Rogue.

[Eldariel]

Ok then, Perhaps elf is a top shelf race and I was remiss to mention it being subpar as compared to half elves and dwarves. What about races like Dragonborn and triton that aren't, for either casting or martial. It's this disparity between the best and worst that is the issue, not how effective the few top shelf races are, and that's my issue, as well as the point of the OP. I guess I just used a poor example (my group almost never plays elves for whatever reason. It's not like we really play other very exotic races either. The most exotic race in our last campaign was a teifling, and the most exotic in this campaign is my goblin ranger).

I completely agree that's a problem, but I do argue it's been a problem with and without Tasha's. There's a pile of races that are just...bad. Dragonborn is a good example of a class that just doesn't get anything worthwhile (the breath weapon they get is just sad and they get basically nothing else aside from one energy resistance). Lightfoot Halflings are nothing to write home about as well. They're fine but there's basically no reason to pick them over Marked Halflings: Lightfoot's stealth ability is quite weak and it gets nothing else. Vanilla Human is obviously pretty trash overall and Tasha's just makes it worse but given it was worthless to start with, eh, whatever. It's hard to argue for base Tiefling over e.g. their Winged cousins and so on.

However, I find it quite hard to name a race that's been made non-competitive by Tasha's. There are some cases where the race got much better due to it (Mountain Dwarf, Half-Elf, all Dragonmarked races and special ability races come to mind) but what races really got much worse by comparison? Vuman got kinda worse but they're good enough that they can take it and Human got worse but they're bad enough without that it doesn't really matter.

[Paladin777]

I wouldn't call them niche - +5 Initiative and Surprise will give you a lot of extra first actions over the course of any given day, and Lucky will basically always find high value uses over a day. And you can make use of Alert's last clause by casting any vision denial spell (generally Fog Cloud or Pyrotechnics; Pyrotechnics later since it lacks Concentration). Individual situations may be niche but added together they all are quite frequent, at least in my experience.

That said, my philosophy is to especially prepare for cases where TPK is actually possible and the extra power is most needed. It is my experience that you generally don't need that much power in circumstances where you can control the terms of engagement, but the problems come especially when you get surprised, or lose Initiative, or face an extremely aberrant series of rolls in combat. As such, I generally pick options to alleviate those.

So while you've got some nice tricks up your sleeve, I'm sitting as an absolute Unit! Your Vuman didn't take Med armor by level 8, which means you're stuck at max int 16, max con of 17, max Dex of 15 (for a max AC of 15 after burning a spell, which is very important in the early game) and not much left over for anything to bump your wisdom saves above proficiency.

The dwarf is a powerhouse at level 8 with the ability to be sitting on 20 int, 18 con (or 20 con and 18 int if you really want to make the fighter blush. Or 19 int, primed for a half-feat at level 12, and 18 con with proficiency) and a spell-less AC of 17 (and will have more potential uses of the shield spell due to more intelligence! Sure, you can take more spells with 'ok but' effects, but the dwarf will make more stick in general, and no longer has to worry about any more ASI's and can take whatever feats he wants from here on out.

[Paladin777]

@eldarial

That's what I mean about some races just getting worse. Dragonborn was at least one of the only races that had a bump to Str and cha, making them decent paladins by comparison, but now they've lost any semblance of exclusivity with that.

Light foot halflings would have made decent cha-casters with their bump to Dex and cha, but now they're outshined dramatically. And that's the problem. Races that were overall rather subpar with a niche, no longer have that niche, and now are relegated to the 'nearly unusable' status. This is the crux of the issue.

And half-elf was god-tier for anything that didn't want to dump cha into the sea before Tasha's so let's not even go there. Heck, it even allowed some crazy suboptimal builds to potentially work (barbarian/devotion Paladin Multiclass using devotions channel divinity along with reckless attack to make super accurate attacks with GWM for example!)

[LudicSavant]

That's what I mean about some races just getting worse. Dragonborn was at least one of the only races that had a bump to Str and cha, making them decent paladins by comparison, but now they've lost any semblance of exclusivity with that. Fallen Aasimar, VHumans, Half-Elves, and so forth were far better Paladins than Dragonborn before Tasha's.

I think blaming Tasha's for Dragonborn losing their niche is silly, because they never had an optimization niche. Ever. Not even when it was PHB-only.

[Eldariel]

So while you've got some nice tricks up your sleeve, I'm sitting as an absolute Unit! Your Vuman didn't take Med armor by level 8, which means you're stuck at max int 16, max con of 17, max Dex of 15 (for a max AC of 15 after burning a spell, which is very important in the early game and not much left over for anything like wisdom saves.

Well, Dex 16/Con 16/Int 16 so AC 16, but yes. I prefer starting at high Dex to ensure my Light Crossbow is competitive for 1-4 before I get 2dX cantrips and to get some AC, Initiative, etc. I'll even out my Con with Res: Con. Obviously I'm not going to get any armor proficiencies over my whole career: that's kinda once-and-done sorta thing, too big of an investment for too little gain unless you craft the whole build around it. I'd only be 1 AC behind compared to the Mountain Dwarf anyways.

And my personal toughness isn't really my biggest contribution: while I do have Shield and Absorb Elements and False Life if necessary [probably not preparing that outside situations where I expect to stand in the front for whatever reason], I'm mostly interested in dropping big CC and occasional damage spells as necessary to reduce the incoming enemy offense the party has to weather as much as possible [ideally to 0], preferably before they get to act. I also have Lucky which means if I do happen to get attacked and crit, I do have the option of making the attacker reroll that so as long as I have Lucky charges, I'm almost crit-proof. Which adds a lot to my survivability as well.

Indeed, I won't focus on durability first because my first line of defense against attacks is not getting attacked. The more you are attacked, the more value you get out of your AC. Since my primary plan is to not be attacked, I wouldn't get that much value out of it so it doesn't make sense to invest all that much in it. If I'm fighting ranged opponents, I can drop prone after moving and force enemies to attack my 16 AC + Shield self at disadvantage and against melee enemies I have my 30' movement and potential Misty Step to position so that reaching me will be difficult and of course, those big spells to make the would-be attackers unable to take action.

In short, because my primary goal is to not be attacked, resources put on damage mitigation and avoidance aren't that beneficial.


If I were to build a Mountain Dwarf Wizard, I'd most definitely build a frontline Wizard to play to their strengths insteads. Take Moderately Armored on 4 (pump Dex to 14 saving even more out of that sweet point buy) with Res: Con on 8. Then walk in there and let enemies focus you all they want - to their detriment. This way, your significant AC + ablative defenses will get value and you will directly decrease the amount of ability enemies have to hit you. Further, this means you are presenting the enemy with a lose-lose situation when you cast a Concentration spell: they don't want to attack you since they are really unlikely hurt you and you won't likely drop Concentration, but you are Concentrating on something that's seriously messing them up and they won't win unless they attack you. This also lets you make use of Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade if you have the stats for them (if not, Toll is still fine).

I feel like Medium Armor without shield isn't all that great. It's good but ultimately it's not that much more AC than just Mage Armor (+1 compared to 16 Dex). It does save you a spell slot and a spell known, which is really nice of course, but far as durability goes the biggest gain here is the fairly massive Con. Which is great! But I do still prefer worse average performance and lesser chance of catastrophic existence failure to better average and higher chance of catastrophic existence failure.

The short version is:
- Mountain Dwarf has high numbers. More HP, an extra spell prepared & higher save DCs, slightly higher AC, better saves Wis at least, etc.

- Vuman has immunity to a lot of things that can end a party. They're immune to surprise, they're very unlikely to go last when it matters (Alert + Lucky reroll + 16 Dex), they're very unlikely to fail Counterspell/Dispel checks against high level spells when it really matters (1d20+3 with a reroll), they have good saves if they aren't failing many important saves per day (thus consuming Lucky), they are highly resistant to getting crit superhard, and they still have decent numbers across the board (only slightly lower HP at 58 vs. 66, 1 less AC, ~2-3 worse Wis saves but at reroll option, 1 lower spell save DCs, effectively 2 less spells prepared between Mage Armor and 1 less Int).


I can see the appeal of the former. I might play it myself. But I do feel like the latter has a higher chance of pulling their party through a rough campaign.

[Paladin777]

True, but there was at least a base competency there than almost every other race lacked (in the form of an unusual ability score increase). Sure, there are better races, but many people think that Dragonborn are just plain cool. Lot of people want to play them, but not a lot of people want to be completely outshined, even for the rule-of-cool. Now that 'base competency' is available to every race

[Eldariel]

True, but there was at least a base competency there than almost every other race lacked (in the form of an unusual ability score increase). Sure, there are better races, but many people think that Dragonborn are just plain cool. Lot of people want to play them, but not a lot of people want to be completely outshined, even for the rule-of-cool. Now that 'base competency' is available to every race

I solve this by just buffing Dragonborn. It's an undeniably cool race but since it's mechanically so damn subpar, I just threw in lots of Draconic-feeling buffs at it (13+Dex Nat Armor, 10' Blindsight, Perception Proficiency, 2d8+1d8/2 levels breath weapon at 6 on d6 recharge) and it's been something my players have enjoyed but non-Dragonborn players haven't complained. The breath is strong enough to be worth an action every now and then [old one you frankly shouldn't use] and being usable with recovery allows for using it to melt walls and such (extremely slowly but still) if your element is good for that (obviously poison doesn't work that well there - if I had a poison Dragonborn player I would probably give the breath the ability to e.g. inflict Poisoned on failed save).

Human issue is easy to solve by just making Vuman default Human instead. Most other races are fine with a bit of buffing or tinkering.


Either way, I don't feel like Tasha's really did much to this end. The weak may be slightly more obviously weak but...really, you should buff them if your players want to play them whether you use Tasha's or not.

[Paladin777]

I think that once again our tabletop experiences have likely shaped our perceptions. While our DM's likes to ambush us from time to time as well, almost all of our combats are grueling slugfests where getting the first round helps, but not as much as simply having the stamina to endure and the raw power to slug back (like the time where we went up against 4 pit fiends and 6 high level wizards behind them... we were level 14. We did have a 'lair mechanic' in our favor though, that helped a little. We also had some crazy OP magic items which also helped, but it was still 4 pit fiends!). All of our guys that DM are like that.

Neither approach is wrong. However, both builds greatly outshine what many other races can produce, and that's disparity is the problem.

[Dork_Forge]

I feel like Medium Armor without shield isn't all that great. It's good but ultimately it's not that much more AC than just Mage Armor (+1 compared to 16 Dex). It does save you a spell slot and a spell known, which is really nice of course, but far as durability goes the biggest gain here is the fairly massive Con. Which is great! But I do still prefer worse average performance and lesser chance of catastrophic existence failure to better average and higher chance of catastrophic existence failure.

The short version is:
- Mountain Dwarf has high numbers. More HP, an extra spell prepared & higher save DCs, slightly higher AC, better saves Wis at least, etc.

- Vuman has immunity to a lot of things that can end a party. They're immune to surprise, they're very unlikely to go last when it matters (Alert + Lucky reroll + 16 Dex), they're very unlikely to fail Counterspell/Dispel checks against high level spells when it really matters (1d20+3 with a reroll), they have good saves if they aren't failing many important saves per day (thus consuming Lucky), they are highly resistant to getting crit superhard, and they still have decent numbers across the board (only slightly lower HP at 58 vs. 66, 1 less AC, ~2-3 worse Wis saves but at reroll option, 1 lower spell save DCs, effectively 2 less spells prepared between Mage Armor and 1 less Int).


I can see the appeal of the former. I might play it myself. But I do feel like the latter has a higher chance of pulling their party through a rough campaign.

Mountain Dwarf is functionally +1 1st level spell in book, +2 prepared spells, and at minimum +1 1st level spell slot due to not needing Mage Armor. Everytime that +1 comes into play is likely an instance of saving a slot on Shield (or a Luck point in the comparison).

The V. Human needs to be immune to surprise because they're more susceptible to it to begin with, likewise they need the Lucky defense (which ultimately is a second chance, not a solid defense) because of the lower AC, Con saves and Wis saves.

You can't blanket say 'very unlikely to x/virtually crit prrof because Lucky' because you have 3 Luck points a day to cover all of those things. The liklihood of running out of Luck is very high even if you use it selfishly.

The V. Human in comparison is worse at being a Wizard in general in comparison to the M. Dwarf when dumping ASIs into that selection of feats.

And the extra hp does also factor in to avoiding death/TPKs a decent amount, with a d6 hit die every single hp helps since instadeath is a threat for longer than other hit die sizes.



Neither approach is wrong. However, both builds greatly outshine what many other races can produce, and that's disparity is the problem.

Agreed, the gap between the top and bottom is significant even with the optional rule in place.

[stoutstien]

True, but there was at least a base competency there than almost every other race lacked (in the form of an unusual ability score increase). Sure, there are better races, but many people think that Dragonborn are just plain cool. Lot of people want to play them, but not a lot of people want to be completely outshined, even for the rule-of-cool. Now that 'base competency' is available to every race

I think your definition of being "completely outshined" is probably unrealistic with a system like 5e. The races themselves are such a small part of the overall picture most groups will never see any meaningful gap. Dragonborn has been constantly popular at every level of play I've seen and tables using tasha rules is not going to change that.

[Paladin777]

I solve this by just buffing Dragonborn. It's an undeniably cool race but since it's mechanically so damn subpar, I just threw in lots of Draconic-feeling buffs at it (13+Dex Nat Armor, 10' Blindsight, Perception Proficiency, 2d8+1d8/2 levels breath weapon at 6 on d6 recharge) and it's been something my players have enjoyed but non-Dragonborn players haven't complained. The breath is strong enough to be worth an action every now and then [old one you frankly shouldn't use] and being usable with recovery allows for using it to melt walls and such (extremely slowly but still) if your element is good for that (obviously poison doesn't work that well there - if I had a poison Dragonborn player I would probably give the breath the ability to e.g. inflict Poisoned on failed save).

Human issue is easy to solve by just making Vuman default Human instead. Most other races are fine with a bit of buffing or tinkering.


Either way, I don't feel like Tasha's really did much to this end. The weak may be slightly more obviously weak but...really, you should buff them if your players want to play them whether you use Tasha's or not.

I agree with you, but Tasha's didn't do any favors to those 'weak' races. While you can house rule all you want, many tables are very strict with their house rules. Mine included.

[Eldariel]

The V. Human needs to be immune to surprise because they're more susceptible to it to begin with, likewise they need the Lucky defense (which ultimately is a second chance, not a solid defense) because of the lower AC, Con saves and Wis saves.

This is your primary misunderstanding. Wizard not going first isn't dangerous for the Wizard. It's dangerous for the party. The Wizard is the person most likely able to cut off most of enemy offense with an action or at least to reinforce party defensive positions so that they won't get annihilated. They're also the character most likely to be in a relatively safe position since their natural positioning is in a protected, safe location preferably hiding.

Like you might end up fighting 6 casters (with 52 HP) capable of casting Fireball on level 5 in a certain WotC adventure path. Such a fight is only winnable if you manage to disable most of those before they get to act. Rogue is not gonna do it. Fighter is not gonna do it. Ranger is not gonna do it. Paladin is not gonna do it. Artificer is not gonna do it. Barbarian is not gonna do it. Monk might be able to do something if they went first, were in melee range, and managed to land multiple stuns while Flurrying (sadly this takes all their resources so they won't be useful afterwards in the fight).

Even Cleric and Druid are pretty limited at what they can do: Cleric can upcast Hold Person to level 3 to hit two of them or try to catch most of them in Silence (but while catching them in Silence is doable, keeping them there is harder), Druid can Conjure Animals and eat one or preferably send waves and draw some spells from them (but as they all have two Fireballs, that's hard to pull off) or try to like Wall of Water or similar to mitigate the incoming bombardment. Of course, sensible ruling of Entangle might make it prevent casting somantics but as written, this is not the case. So what's left? The arcane caster. The Wizard/Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock. The only real way to survive such a fight is to have the arcane caster go first. And then they drop an AOE CC spell like Hypnotic Pattern or Fear or whatever. Those are about the only abilities in addition to Monk stunning the whole enemy that can do enough to mitigate the party wipe.

The party can take ~2-3 Fireballs (Wizard on this level with 15 Con has 32 HP so making one save and failing one save and casting Absorb Elements, or Counterspelling one Fireball and failing the save leaves them standing most of the time - they need to save vs. both if targeted by 3 Fireballs and Counterspelling one though) but not 5-6. Even a Bear Totem Barbarian with 16 Con + Tough and Inspiring Leader temporary HP from Vuman Bard with 18 Cha has 69 HP. Even if they do manage to Rage, they must save against 2 of the Fireballs to be likely to survive. And of course, even if the Barbarian survives, if the rest of the party dies they're not gonna win that fight alone - second round sees another such barrage unless the enemies get disabled. Note how in this case, the Wizard's action protects the party (e.g. Counterspell protects not only the Wizard but everyone else as well) while most characters' contributions can only slowly chip down on the enemies without doing anything to help the party.


And this is of course the case with almost all encounters, just in a less extreme guise. If the arcane caster can go first and land Hypnotic Pattern/Web/Sleep/Fear/Slow/whatever before the enemy gets to act, that's going to make the fight massively easier. The difference between the arcane caster going first and going second is night and day: it's easy to take multiple times more damage in fights where the CC effect fails to land before enemies get to cast their stuff and potentially enter party formation or some such that makes it harder to AoE them down.

[Paladin777]

I think your definition of being "completely outshined" is probably unrealistic with a system like 5e. The races themselves are such a small part of the overall picture most groups will never see any meaningful gap. Dragonborn has been constantly popular at every level of play I've seen and tables using tasha rules is not going to change that.

You're probably right in that I'm going a bit too far with my claims for 'completely outshined (which is also why my high-ish cha barbarian shouldn't be too far behind in the power curve). However, greater than or equal to without any remedy is still just that.

[MaxWilson]

However, I find it quite hard to name a race that's been made non-competitive by Tasha's.

Gnomes are just worse Yuan-ti for Tasha's players. For non-Tasha's they aren't really part of the same ecosystem due to different stat mods.

[Paladin777]

Gnomes are just worse Yuan-ti for Tasha's players. For non-Tasha's they aren't really part of the same ecosystem due to different stat mods.

And while halflings 'I don't roll ones' is nice, it's not very pertinent in a table that doesn't incorporate critical failure house rules. They're also overtaken by dwarves in most other respects. Not that they weren't already overtaken by goblins in most respects... and I'll concede that that was a Volo issue, not a Tasha issue.

[Eldariel]

Gnomes are just worse Yuan-ti for Tasha's players. For non-Tasha's they aren't really part of the same ecosystem due to different stat mods.

Mmm, that's fair enough, though Deep Gnome does also offer 120' Darkvision which isn't nothing. It's generally not as good as Poison Immunity + Suggestion Innate Spell but it is at least somewhat unique and with some special applications.


And while halflings 'I don't roll ones' is nice, it's not very pertinent in a table that doesn't incorporate critical failure house rules. They're also overtaken by dwarves in most other respects.

Well, it is pretty nice for builds that can get very high degree of success (such as builds with rolled bonuses and high base rolls: e.g. Soulknife's Homing Strikes means you will very probably be hitting as long as you don't roll a nat 1). It's a significant increase in reliability, but agreed that it's very niche. That said, there are Halfling subraces with worthwhile abilities for certain builds.

[MaxWilson]

Like you might end up fighting 6 casters (with 52 HP) capable of casting Fireball on level 5 in a certain WotC adventure path.

Huh. Now I kind of want to check out that adventure path, and see what the context is. I like high challenge, but I also like open-ended stuff with more than one solution. Is there anything forcing the PCs to engage these six casters at medium range (150') right now? What prevents a party who detects these casters via e.g. familiar scouting (Chainlock Sprite) from either bypassing them or engaging from longbow range or creating total cover in advance with Mold Earth that can be used with readied actions?

What adventure is it and what scene?


And while halflings 'I don't roll ones' is nice, it's not very pertinent in a table that doesn't incorporate critical failure house rules. They're also overtaken by dwarves in most other respects. Not that they weren't already overtaken by goblins in most respects... and I'll concede that that was a Volo issue, not a Tasha issue.

Rerolling 1s is nicer than you think it is. It can be equaled to up to +1 on a roll. More specifically, it's +N on the roll, where N is the probability of making a successful reroll. If you fail concentration saves only 10% of the time (+7 to Con saves), halfling rerolls are like +0.9, which is sort of like +1.8 to Con.

But that low movement speed is a killer. Jorasco halflings are great because Mark of Healing is quite strong on wizards--or rather, having another healer in the party who is also a full wizard is quite strong for the party, almost like leaving 5 PCs instead of 4--and the halfling rerolls prevent the racial choice from feeling like a complete writeoff aside from the spells, but you still feel the pain of low movement speed. It's good game design, which Tasha's throws out the window.


Mmm, that's fair enough, though Deep Gnome does also offer 120' Darkvision which isn't nothing. It's generally not as good as Poison Immunity + Suggestion Innate Spell but it is at least somewhat unique and with some special applications.

True. I meant PHB Gnomes (Forest/Rock). For historical reasons I tend to think of Svirfneblins as their own race (not normally allowed for PCs, in AD&D), and I forget that 5E makes them a subrace.

Forest and Rock Gnomes are just worse Yuan-ti for Tasha's players.

[Paladin777]

When the heck are you rolling DC 9 saving throws!? I guess maybe on concentration checks vs hordes maybe, but still!

[Eldariel]

Huh. Now I kind of want to check out that adventure path, and see what the context is. I like high challenge, but I also like open-ended stuff with more than one solution. Is there anything forcing the PCs to engage these six casters at medium range (150') right now? What prevents a party who detects these casters via e.g. familiar scouting (Chainlock Sprite) from either bypassing them or engaging from longbow range or creating total cover in advance with Mold Earth that can be used with readied actions?

What adventure is it and what scene?

The module is Princes of the Apocalypse and the scene is Scarlet Moon Hall. It's basically a series of camps in a mountainside with a bunch of Druids and cultists masquerading as cultists and running the whole show (preparing for a ritual to basically solve all world's problems). If PCs make their presence known to the cultists, nearest camps will swarm them and the rest "hunker down".

There's ways to bypass many of those issues alright. You can surprise the camps one by one where you only ever have to fight two at a time and you can just sneak past and try to assassinate the leaders. However, that has the issue of potential alarm pulling all the enemies up while your party is stuck in a wooden fortification atop the hill. It's probably better to take the camps out as you go but if you do let someone sound the alarm, you might be in a situation where you'll have to fight all the Priests at once, perhaps at the Courtyard on the top. And the haze combined with the hilly terrain makes the use of Longbows tricky though it's of course always a valid option especially if you have access to flight.

Sadly the rest of the module isn't nearly as challenging but that place can be depending on how things go. First, there's haze in the hill so the characters can sneak pretty easily if they've got a Druid or even a Ranger for Pass without Trace. Second, yes, scouting works though the haze and lack of knowledge of who is actually an enemy and who isn't might make things more difficult. Mostly, if played mechanically well, it's not gonna be that bad (though two Priests Fireballing a level 5 party can still be dangerous).

[MaxWilson]

When the heck are you rolling DC 9 saving throws!? I guess maybe on concentration checks vs hordes maybe, but still!

If you have +7 to Con saves, then you fail DC 10 concentration saves only 10% of the time. It's just an example though. If you've got only +2 to Con saves, then you succeed 65% of the time on those DC 10 saves, and that makes halfling luck like +0.65, which is sort of like +1.3 to Con, as well as adding between +0 and +1 to all of your other saves and attack rolls and ability checks. It's not terrible.

[stoutstien]

IMO lucky is a good example of a worthwhile racial feature. It isn't class or build dependant and it's easy to use.

[Paladin777]

I'm not saying that halfling luck is a bad thing (perhaps a little overshadowed by some other abilities like the goblin's general slipperiness when not playing a rogue), Its just that DC 9 is really low!

[Dork_Forge]

This is your primary misunderstanding. Wizard not going first isn't dangerous for the Wizard. It's dangerous for the party. The Wizard is the person most likely able to cut off most of enemy offense with an action or at least to reinforce party defensive positions so that they won't get annihilated. They're also the character most likely to be in a relatively safe position since their natural positioning is in a protected, safe location preferably hiding.

Like you might end up fighting 6 casters (with 52 HP) capable of casting Fireball on level 5 in a certain WotC adventure path. Such a fight is only winnable if you manage to disable most of those before they get to act. Rogue is not gonna do it. Fighter is not gonna do it. Ranger is not gonna do it. Paladin is not gonna do it. Artificer is not gonna do it. Barbarian is not gonna do it. Monk might be able to do something if they went first, were in melee range, and managed to land multiple stuns while Flurrying (sadly this takes all their resources so they won't be useful afterwards in the fight).

Even Cleric and Druid are pretty limited at what they can do: Cleric can upcast Hold Person to level 3 to hit two of them or try to catch most of them in Silence (but while catching them in Silence is doable, keeping them there is harder), Druid can Conjure Animals and eat one or preferably send waves and draw some spells from them (but as they all have two Fireballs, that's hard to pull off) or try to like Wall of Water or similar to mitigate the incoming bombardment. Of course, sensible ruling of Entangle might make it prevent casting somantics but as written, this is not the case. So what's left? The arcane caster. The Wizard/Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock. The only real way to survive such a fight is to have the arcane caster go first. And then they drop an AOE CC spell like Hypnotic Pattern or Fear or whatever. Those are about the only abilities in addition to Monk stunning the whole enemy that can do enough to mitigate the party wipe.

The party can take ~2-3 Fireballs (Wizard on this level with 15 Con has 32 HP so making one save and failing one save and casting Absorb Elements, or Counterspelling one Fireball and failing the save leaves them standing most of the time - they need to save vs. both if targeted by 3 Fireballs and Counterspelling one though) but not 5-6. Even a Bear Totem Barbarian with 16 Con + Tough and Inspiring Leader temporary HP from Vuman Bard with 18 Cha has 69 HP. Even if they do manage to Rage, they must save against 2 of the Fireballs to be likely to survive. And of course, even if the Barbarian survives, if the rest of the party dies they're not gonna win that fight alone - second round sees another such barrage unless the enemies get disabled. Note how in this case, the Wizard's action protects the party (e.g. Counterspell protects not only the Wizard but everyone else as well) while most characters' contributions can only slowly chip down on the enemies without doing anything to help the party.


And this is of course the case with almost all encounters, just in a less extreme guise. If the arcane caster can go first and land Hypnotic Pattern/Web/Sleep/Fear/Slow/whatever before the enemy gets to act, that's going to make the fight massively easier. The difference between the arcane caster going first and going second is night and day: it's easy to take multiple times more damage in fights where the CC effect fails to land before enemies get to cast their stuff and potentially enter party formation or some such that makes it harder to AoE them down.

This example is... beyond erroneous. I agree having a caster to go first can drastically shift things if they are capable of casting a control spell and that control spell works (sounds like you want a good DC...). Realistically though this encounter should never happen and even if it does all you need to have happen is for anyone to go first and scatter out of fireball formation.

I think you massively overrate the importance of a Wizard going first, I would rate a decently survivable Wizard over a high initiative one everytime and tbh you don't even need Alert for this anyway. There's two different subclasses that give Int to initiative.

This reply may seem short, but that's simply because this scenario is ridiuclous.


The module is Princes of the Apocalypse and the scene is Scarlet Moon Hall. It's basically a series of camps in a mountainside with a bunch of Druids and cultists masquerading as cultists and running the whole show (preparing for a ritual to basically solve all world's problems). If PCs make their presence known to the cultists, nearest camps will swarm them and the rest "hunker down".

There's ways to bypass many of those issues alright. You can surprise the camps one by one where you only ever have to fight two at a time and you can just sneak past and try to assassinate the leaders. However, that has the issue of potential alarm pulling all the enemies up while your party is stuck in a wooden fortification atop the hill. It's probably better to take the camps out as you go but if you do let someone sound the alarm, you might be in a situation where you'll have to fight all the Priests at once, perhaps at the Courtyard on the top. And the haze combined with the hilly terrain makes the use of Longbows tricky though it's of course always a valid option especially if you have access to flight.

Sadly the rest of the module isn't nearly as challenging but that place can be depending on how things go. First, there's haze in the hill so the characters can sneak pretty easily if they've got a Druid or even a Ranger for Pass without Trace. Second, yes, scouting works though the haze and lack of knowledge of who is actually an enemy and who isn't might make things more difficult. Mostly, if played mechanically well, it's not gonna be that bad (though two Priests Fireballing a level 5 party can still be dangerous).

Having read through this it's a massive misrepresentation of the module.


For all 6 casters capable of casting Fireball to be present at once things have to go monumentally wrong:

-You can avoid all the camps just by going around to the otherside of the hill, you don't even need checks to climb

-The Haze facilitates sneaking around the camps

-The camps aren't all hostile, it explicitly says that the first set of reinforcements are the Druids which try and talk things out.

-Two of those casters are very likely to get mauled by a bear they're keeping prisoner.

-The cultists tossing around Fireballs is a very clear indicator that they are not Druids, and makes the Druids siding with the players more likely.

I see no genuine way that what you proposed could actually happen if the module is being ran as intended.

[quindraco]

Incidentally, Githyanki get a similar effect to what Mountain Dwarves get from Tasha's, in that their +2 Str paired with medium armor proficiency is a lot better when you can re-assign the ASI, because most builds that want Strength already have medium armor proficiency.

Likewise, another race that Tasha's really helped out was Protector Aasimar - they were Wis/Cha, but post-Tasha's even if you make the same character with them (i.e. a Wis person or a Cha person), being able to rearrange into +2 Wis or Cha and then +1 Con makes you SADder. The rest of the race is so good, that change alone gives them a huge boost, and of course they can freely re-assign to build into any class they want.

In a similar vein, Tritons are a crazy good race now that their statline isn't basically locked to a Paladin's wet dream. They were good before, but now they can take their kit to other classes, too.

[Dork_Forge]

Incidentally, Githyanki get a similar effect to what Mountain Dwarves get from Tasha's, in that their +2 Str paired with medium armor proficiency is a lot better when you can re-assign the ASI, because most builds that want Strength already have medium armor proficiency.

Likewise, another race that Tasha's really helped out was Protector Aasimar - they were Wis/Cha, but post-Tasha's even if you make the same character with them (i.e. a Wis person or a Cha person), being able to rearrange into +2 Wis or Cha and then +1 Con makes you SADder. The rest of the race is so good, that change alone gives them a huge boost, and of course they can freely re-assign to build into any class they want.

In a similar vein, Tritons are a crazy good race now that their statline isn't basically locked to a Paladin's wet dream. They were good before, but now they can take their kit to other classes, too.

Agree about the Githyanki, what makes you think so highly of the Triton?

[quindraco]

Agree about the Githyanki, what makes you think so highly of the Triton?

Their out-of-band good racial spellcasting - instead of cantrip then an l1 spell then an l2 spell, they get an l1, then an l2, then an l3.

[Dork_Forge]

Their out-of-band good racial spellcasting - instead of cantrip then an l1 spell then an l2 spell, they get an l1, then an l2, then an l3.

Ahh so you're going off of the levels rather than the spells themselves?

[MaxWilson]

I'm not saying that halfling luck is a bad thing (perhaps a little overshadowed by some other abilities like the goblin's general slipperiness when not playing a rogue), Its just that DC 9 is really low!

DC 10, not 9. And DC 10 is (1) just an example chosen to illustrate the math, (2) the most common concentration save.

[Paladin777]

DC 10, not 9. And DC 10 is (1) just an example chosen to illustrate the math, (2) the most common concentration save.

Ah. However, the further away you get from requiring a 2 on the die to succeed, the less relevant it becomes. Again, not saying it's a bad ability, but if you assume that your average rolls will require an 9 or so (probably a likely average) it's only going to bump up your success rate by 3 percent. In tables that use 'critical failure' house rules (like the one I attend), however, it does become much more valuable!

Ultimately, it's very nice to have, but I'd never rely on it.

[LudicSavant]

Lucky is approximately a +0.5 to all d20 rolls (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/100035/how-does-halfling-luck-re-rolling-my-nat-1s-affect-my-dice-outcome). Every save, every ability check, every initiative roll, every attack roll. When combined with other good features, it makes for a strong race.

So for instance Lotusden Halflings, Ghallanda Halflings, and Jorasco Halflings are all strong.

[MaxWilson]

Ah. However, the further away you get from requiring a 2 on the die to succeed, the less relevant it becomes. Again, not saying it's a bad ability, but if you assume that your average rolls will require an 9 or so (probably a likely average) it's only going to bump up your success rate by 3 percent. In tables that use 'critical failure' house rules (like the one I attend), however, it does become much more valuable!

Ultimately, it's very nice to have, but I'd never rely on it.

Agreed. I'm just saying it's not trash even if you're not at a table that doesn't use critical failure rolls. It's a minor numeric bonus that's approximately as powerful as +0-2 to all stats, depending, when it comes to attack rolls/saves/ability checks.

It's not enough for me to take halfling on its own, but if you're going to play a Dragonmarked halfling like Mark of Healing it's a nice fringe benefit that helps make up for not getting +2 to your prime requisite (Int for wizards, Cha for sorlocks).

[Ettina]

Their out-of-band good racial spellcasting - instead of cantrip then an l1 spell then an l2 spell, they get an l1, then an l2, then an l3.

The rest of their features are useless unless you're encountering bodies of water a lot, though. Except for cold resistance, which is also highly situational.

Just having 1/long rest uses of a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spell doesn't carry a race whose other features are likely to never come up all campaign.

[LudicSavant]

There are at least 50 good (optimization-wise) races post-Tasha's, far more than the "just a couple" that are claimed by alarmists. Folks talkin' about Mountain Dwarves aren't thinking about Warding Dwarves, let alone Beasthide Shifters or Shadow Elves or Dhampir or the like.

The stuff being pointed to as examples of things that are bad now (like Dragonborn) were already never used for optimization.

Most of the things that are pointed to as examples of things that are good now (like Half-Elves) have literally dozens of other things that are competitive, including every Eberron and Ravenloft race (Dhampir, Shifters, Dragonmarked races, Warforged, Reborn, etc etc etc), the majority of the Ravnica ones (like Vedalken, Loxodon, Simic), both the MOT ones (Leonin, Satyrs), all the MToF ones except the Tieflings with bad spell lists (Levistus okay, Baalzebul bad), and about half the VGtM ones (like every kind of Aasimar, Goblin, Hobgoblin, and Yuan-Ti).

[Paladin777]

So, we've debated at length on about caster, and while we don't seem to agree on a lot of things, I think we can agree that there are at least a lot more powerful caster builds than there were before (and at least some of the powerful ones got even more so), but what about the martials? By and large, the casters didn't really need the power boost when compared to the martials, so if casters got a boost and martials didn't, then that's another issue unto itself! (To be clear, I'm not making the claim that martials didn't get more powerful as a whole, I'm only bringing it up as a talking point. I haven't looked into it enough to make a decision)

[Dork_Forge]

So, we've debated at length on about caster, and while we don't seem to agree on a lot of things, I think we can agree that there are at least a lot more powerful caster builds than there were before (and at least some of the powerful ones got even more so), but what about the martials? By and large, the casters didn't really need the power boost when compared to the martials, so if casters got a boost and martials didn't, then that's another issue unto itself! (To be clear, I'm not making the claim that martials didn't get more powerful as a whole, I'm only bringing it up as a talking point. I haven't looked into it enough to make a decision)

Gut feeling I'd agree that the rule benefits casters more than martials, some changes are generally better or facilitate more niche things, but overall it primarily bumped casters by taking off the optimisation weight of mismatched stats.

[Paladin777]

Knee jerk reaction, but I think you're right. I don't think that's a good thing... martials might be ahead in early play, but casters definitely take the lead as the levels progress, and if thats even more pronounced now, I don't think that's good for balance.

[MaxWilson]

So, we've debated at length on about caster, and while we don't seem to agree on a lot of things, I think we can agree that there are at least a lot more powerful caster builds than there were before (and at least some of the powerful ones got even more so), but what about the martials? By and large, the casters didn't really need the power boost when compared to the martials, so if casters got a boost and martials didn't, then that's another issue unto itself! (To be clear, I'm not making the claim that martials didn't get more powerful as a whole, I'm only bringing it up as a talking point. I haven't looked into it enough to make a decision)

Not that much change there because the best kinds of warriors are Dexy Archers, and Aarakocra could already get Dex, and so could vhumans. But Yuan-ti Eldritch Knights with +2 Dex, +1 Con certainly have their own appeal. Edit: I guess Aarakocra get slightly better with the ability to shift their +1 into Con. Especially for point buy PCs, that's an extra +1 HP per level, which isn't nothing.

There are also some niche cases like Wildhunt Shifter Barbarians who can use Tasha's rules to shift their bonuses into Strength and Con to take better advantage on the Reckless Attack synergy. It's not really clear whether they're better than vhumans with GWM, especially before Tier 3, but they might be.

[Dork_Forge]

Knee jerk reaction, but I think you're right. I don't think that's a good thing... martials might be ahead in early play, but casters definitely take the lead as the levels progress, and if thats even more pronounced now, I don't think that's good for balance.

I don't agree with the whole caster superiority thing as a whole, I just agree that the optional rule tilts more in the caster direction than martials as a whole.

[ff7hero]

Not that much change there because the best kinds of warriors are Dexy Archers, and Aarakocra could already get Dex, and so could vhumans. But Yuan-ti Eldritch Knights with +2 Dex, +1 Con certainly have their own appeal. Edit: I guess Aarakocra get slightly better with the ability to shift their +1 into Con. Especially for point buy PCs, that's an extra +1 HP per level, which isn't nothing.

There are also some niche cases like Wildhunt Shifter Barbarians who can use Tasha's rules to shift their bonuses into Strength and Con to take better advantage on the Reckless Attack synergy. It's not really clear whether they're better than vhumans with GWM, especially before Tier 3, but they might be.

Winged Tieflings are also more competitive in the flying archer role post-Tashas. Darkvision and Fire Resistance (plus smaller benefits like an actual lifespan, the ability to fly in Medium Armor and a faster walking speed) offer a competitive choice compared to the Aarakocra's faster flight (and Str claws).

Goblins also make better Monks now, since Nimbe Escape saves Ki in a similar way to the oft grabbed Mobile. The kobold (or small race of choice) Beastmaster/Paladin riding their companion/steed and dual wielding lances also gets a bit better, but that's already a pretty meme build.


I don't agree with the whole caster superiority thing as a whole, I just agree that the optional rule tilts more in the caster direction than martials as a whole.

I agree with this in terms of combat ability, but casters are still the kings of out of combat utility. Especially as levels rise.

[Paladin777]

Goblins also make better Monks now, since Nimbe Escape saves Ki in a similar way to the oft grabbed Mobile. The kobold (or small race of choice) Beastmaster/Paladin riding their companion/steed and dual wielding lances also gets a bit better, but that's already a pretty meme build.

With +2/+1 Dex/con they were already great monks. With that spread plus all their other stuff they were also already great for any other Dex-based melee builds too. Though they are redundant with cunning action.


I agree with this in terms of combat ability, but casters are still the kings of out of combat utility. Especially as levels rise.

That also depends on the length of the adventuring day. The shorter the average day, the more powerful (non-warlock) casters get.

[LudicSavant]

Ok then, Perhaps elf is a top shelf race and I was remiss to mention it being subpar as compared to half elves and dwarves.

Elves are indeed top shelf (especially Shadar-Kai, Eladrin, and Shadow Elves, but others have optimization niches too. For example Wood Elves are good for speedy Rogues that can hide while being observed and can grab Wood Elf Magic, High Elves are good for classes that want to grab Booming Blade, Drow are competitive with Half-Drow for characters who aren't impacted by Sunlight Sensitivity).

But it's not just elves. All of the following have an optimization niche competitive with Half-Elves:

Aarakocra
Aasimar (Fallen)
Aasimar (Protector)
Aasimar (Scourge)
Changeling
Custom Lineage
Dhampir
Dwarf (Hill)
Dwarf (Mark of Warding)
Dwarf (Mountain)
Elf (Eladrin)
Elf (Mark of Shadow)
Elf (Shadar-kai)
Elf (Wood)
Elf (High)
Elf (Pallid)
Gith (Githyanki)
Gith (Githzerai)
Gnome (Deep/Svirfneblin)
Gnome (Mark of Scribing)
Goblin
Halfling (Lotusden)
Halfling (Mark of Healing)
Halfling (Mark of Hospitality)
Hexblood
Hobgoblin
Half-Orc / Human (Mark of Finding)
Human (Mark of Handling)
Human (Mark of Passage)
Human (Mark of Sentinel)
Human (Variant)
Kalashtar
Loxodon
Leonin
Kobold
Reborn
Satyr
Simic Hybrid
Shifter (Beasthide)
Shifter (Longtooth)
Shifter (Swiftstride)
Shifter (Wildhunt)
Tabaxi
Tiefling (Levistus)
Tiefling (Variant; Winged)
Vedalken
Warforged
Yuan-ti Pureblood

That is much more than "just a couple of races" that can compete with Half-Elves. That's about 50 races.

As such we should be able to conclude that the claim that Half-Elves greatly overshadow all but a couple of races is not the case.


What about races like Dragonborn and triton that aren't, for either casting or martial. It's this disparity between the best and worst that is the issue, not how effective the few top shelf races are, and that's my issue, as well as the point of the OP. I guess I just used a poor example (my group almost never plays elves for whatever reason. It's not like we really play other very exotic races either. The most exotic race in our last campaign was a teifling, and the most exotic in this campaign is my goblin ranger).

Dragonborn was outclassed as a Paladin by Half-Elves just as much before and after.

What Tasha's did for Paladins is that it made a lot more races catch up to roughly where Half-Elves are, so that we don't see only a few races up there. There are far more races competitive with Half-Elf Paladins than there were before.

Dragonborn just aren't one of them. But they also never were.

As for Tritons, are you aware that they got buffed a bit in errata?

[Paladin777]

Alright, I'll concede that there are a good number of races that are potent (my group played with races from the PHB and volo's. I was allowed the Minotaur because of the RP potential, so I've never even looks into things like ravneca or eberron). However, ultimately every race that is not on the list (and there are many) makes my point (or at least the point of the OP) about disparity between the most and least powerful now that racial ability score bonuses are no longer a tool for balance.

Also, I didn't know about the errata on the triton. My group tend to go straight from the books. Most of them have been playing since 2nd, and a couple since 1st. We're all pretty old school. I'm the newcomer and I've been with them for almost 10 years.

[LudicSavant]

Alright, I'll concede that there are a good number of races that are potent (my group played with races from the PHB and volo's. I was allowed the Minotaur because of the RP potential, so I've never even looks into things like ravneca or eberron).

Okay.


However, ultimately every race that is not on the list (and there are many) makes my point (and the point of the OP) about disparity between the most and least powerful.

Every one? Not really. There are more races I could have put on that list. And then there are races that would go on the "just a little below those" list. And so on down the tiers.

But let's talk about the least powerful races. You mentioned playing a Minotaur, which I've actually rated one of the worst races in the game ("Do you mean Pre-Tasha's, or Post-Tasha's?" "Yes.")

I would consider the following bottom tier races:

Dragonborn (Base)
Dragonborn (Draconblood)
Genasi (Air)
Genasi (Fire)
Genasi (Water)
Human (Base)
Kenku
Minotaur
Tiefling (Baalzebul)
Tiefling (Mephistopheles)
Tiefling (Devil's Tongue)

If you want to fix these races, the answer is like Eldariel said: Buff those races. Tasha's is really not the problem there. Those races are just underpowered.

[Paladin777]

Okay.



Every one? Not really. There are more races I could have put on that list. And then there are races that would go on the "just a little below those" list. And so on down the tiers.

But let's talk about the least powerful races. You mentioned playing a Minotaur, which I've actually rated one of the worst races in the game ("Do you mean Pre-Tasha's, or Post-Tasha's?" "Yes.")

I would consider the following bottom tier races:

Dragonborn (Base)
Dragonborn (Draconblood)
Genasi (Air)
Genasi (Fire)
Genasi (Water)
Human (Base)
Kenku
Minotaur
Tiefling (Baalzebul)
Tiefling (Mephistopheles)
Tiefling (Devil's Tongue)

If you want to fix these races, the answer is like Eldariel said: Buff those races. Tasha's is really not the problem there. Those races are just underpowered.

True, but Tasha's was not only not the fix they needed, I would imagine that many of those are now in a worse state than when they started. Now every race from the first list is now better than them at every class. So instead of putting thought into them, they take a ham-fisted and lazy approach.

Out of curiosity, have you ever looked at pathfinder 1.0's racial rules and options? I think it's a much MUCH better and far more thought-out approach. Each race (or at least a great many of them) had a list of alternate racial traits that you could trade certain ones for. It was amazing.

The Minotaur might not be fantastic, but it should still be a lot of fun and a ton of RP potential with how I intend on playing it. I also don't think she'll lag behind too much in terms of power with the way I've roller her up. I ran the numbers.

[LudicSavant]

True, but Tasha's was not only not the fix they needed, I would imagine that many of those are now in a worse state than when they started. Now every race from the first list is now better than them at every class. So instead of putting thought into them, they take a ham-fisted and lazy approach.

In order to make a race that is balanced for each class, it must be better than options like Kenku at every class, because options like Kenku are below curve for every class.

[Paladin777]

I have no idea what the Kenku has, so I'll take your word for it. That doesn't invalidate my last claim though about disparity and Tasha's not being the needed fix.

[LudicSavant]

I have no idea what the Kenku has, so I'll take your word for it. That doesn't invalidate my last claim though about disparity and Tasha's not being the needed fix.

Yes, Tasha's does not fix races that are below curve for every class. You would need a separate fix to address that separate problem.

[quindraco]

I have no idea what the Kenku has, so I'll take your word for it. That doesn't invalidate my last claim though about disparity and Tasha's not being the needed fix.

Kenku is a playable PC race. Its rules are in Volo's.

Racials:

2 skills.
Advantage on checks to make forgeries.
You can mimic any sound you've ever heard; a listener must beat your Deception with their Insight to tell your voice apart from the original.

[quindraco]

The rest of their features are useless unless you're encountering bodies of water a lot, though. Except for cold resistance, which is also highly situational.

Just having 1/long rest uses of a 1st, 2nd and 3rd level spell doesn't carry a race whose other features are likely to never come up all campaign.

Well, yes, of course. They're setting-sensitive. Every race with a swim speed is situational in that regard.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Kenku is a playable PC race. Its rules are in Volo's.

Racials:

2 skills.
Advantage on checks to make forgeries.
You can mimic any sound you've ever heard; a listener must beat your Deception with their Insight to tell your voice apart from the original.

You forgot the bit where they can't technically speak - they have to repeat words that they've heard others say.

And win a prize for the most annoying racial ability ever.


Languages. You can read and write Common and Auran, but you can only speak using your Mimicry trait.

[Paladin777]

And win a prize for the most annoying racial ability penalty ever.

fixed it for ya!

[Eldariel]

This example is... beyond erroneous. I agree having a caster to go first can drastically shift things if they are capable of casting a control spell and that control spell works (sounds like you want a good DC...). Realistically though this encounter should never happen and even if it does all you need to have happen is for anyone to go first and scatter out of fireball formation.

I think you massively overrate the importance of a Wizard going first, I would rate a decently survivable Wizard over a high initiative one everytime and tbh you don't even need Alert for this anyway. There's two different subclasses that give Int to initiative.

This reply may seem short, but that's simply because this scenario is ridiuclous.

The point isn't the scenario but the broader concept, the scenario is just an extreme example of where it really matters. I think it should be beyond obvious that having an arcane caster with strong CC go first is going to result in a lot less resources burnt by the party over any given day and in some cases, it can straight-up be the difference between TPK and victory.

I find your dismissal of Alert and going first fairly surprising, but of course you're free to think as you will. However, if we crunch the numbers, the number and ease of party victories in any given scenario will trivially correlate more with high Wizard Initiative than with high Wizard defenses, except in cases with Wizard tanking. That's the only metric that really matters IMHO.

[ff7hero]

That also depends on the length of the adventuring day. The shorter the average day, the more powerful (non-warlock) casters get.

I was specifically talking about out of combat, where even just cantrips and rituals trump any mundane's utility.

[Dork_Forge]

The point isn't the scenario but the broader concept, the scenario is just an extreme example of where it really matters. I think it should be beyond obvious that having an arcane caster with strong CC go first is going to result in a lot less resources burnt by the party over any given day and in some cases, it can straight-up be the difference between TPK and victory.

I find your dismissal of Alert and going first fairly surprising, but of course you're free to think as you will. However, if we crunch the numbers, the number and ease of party victories in any given scenario will trivially correlate more with high Wizard Initiative than with high Wizard defenses, except in cases with Wizard tanking. That's the only metric that really matters IMHO.


When you use such an extreme scenario as an example, that scenario does matter to some degree.

I agree getting early CC off is very beneficial, I just don't think it's as make or break as you seem to and given the choice between a Wizard with Alert or with +2 Int, I'd take the latter everytime unless the campaign featured invisible/stealth heavy enemies very prevalently. However most don't so it's the vast majority of the time just an initiative boost.

My main contention here is that it must be a Wizard (or Arcane caster or... any caster) that needs to go first to make a difference. On multiple occasions the greataxe wielding battle master in one game has cut through a swath of enemies when at the top of initiative with Action Surge, same with the Barbarian/Rogue, or the Ranger/Rogue or any number of Paladins.

I've also seen the Bardlock get off Slow early and shift the course of combat. Then again I've also seen the Bardlock (maxed Cha) fail to get CC to stick at all, or only on half etc.

Relying on CC with a delayed progression Int, or well ever is not convincing to me because I've seen it fail often enough and know that it can fail in many ways.

As for Alert on a Wizard, tbh if I wanted a Wizard with high initiative I'd have just played a War Wizard or Chronurgist.

[Paladin777]

The only time anyone at our table has ever taken alert was when he was specifically trying to make a perception master! No one else's has ever bothered to take it. Going first is nice, but I find being more likely to do what you need to when you go is more important.

[ff7hero]

I've taken Alert twice. Once on a Bardadin that dumped Dex to shore up a weakness. The other time was a high level Thief because going first twice is amazing.

[MaxWilson]

The point isn't the scenario but the broader concept, the scenario is just an extreme example of where it really matters. I think it should be beyond obvious that having an arcane caster with strong CC go first is going to result in a lot less resources burnt by the party over any given day and in some cases, it can straight-up be the difference between TPK and victory.

I'm not so sure that that's an ideal scenario to illustrate your point. I don't own Princes of the Apocalypse, but from what you're describing it sounds like the worst-case scenario, if you mess up a lot, is to get surrounded by six Fireball casters and maybe some other bad guys. If so... even if the wizard goes first, what's he going to do to change that equation? He can't Fireball all the bad guys because they're surrounding him, not vice-versa. (And even if he could, they have 52 HP.)

I guess your best-case scenario is to (1) move out of Fireball Formation with the party, and (2) try to Hypnotic Pattern a couple of the enemy casters while holding your other 3rd level slot for a Counterspell, then cross your fingers and pray that the rest of the party rolls high initiative too?

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not so sure that that's an ideal scenario to illustrate your point. I don't own Princes of the Apocalypse, but from what you're describing it sounds like the worst-case scenario, if you mess up a lot, is to get surrounded by six Fireball casters and maybe some other bad guys. If so... even if the wizard goes first, what's he going to do to change that equation? He can't Fireball all the bad guys because they're surrounding him, not vice-versa. (And even if he could, they have 52 HP.)

I guess your best-case scenario is to (1) move out of Fireball Formation with the party, and (2) try to Hypnotic Pattern a couple of the enemy casters while holding your other 3rd level slot for a Counterspell, then cross your fingers and pray that the rest of the party rolls high initiative too?

The scenario is beyond worst case tbh as it ignores factions and considerations present in the environment that are against said casters, whilst assuming said casters all gather together from across a large environment.

If this scenario actually happens I can't realistically see anyway out for anything besides a party that can just take a beating or who all have good initiative mods and roll well (casters have a +2). Every caster has Expeditious Retreat so depending on the DM the party would be out numbered by essentially a 6 person party of 6th level casters with superior to Wizard hp.

[loki_ragnarock]

The scenario is beyond worst case tbh as it ignores factions and considerations present in the environment that are against said casters, whilst assuming said casters all gather together from across a large environment.

If this scenario actually happens I can't realistically see anyway out for anything besides a party that can just take a beating or who all have good initiative mods and roll well (casters have a +2). Every caster has Expeditious Retreat so depending on the DM the party would be out numbered by essentially a 6 person party of 6th level casters with superior to Wizard hp.

If you're looking for an absurd number of fireballs in an encounter, there're just too damn many Flameskulls in the Amber Temple after you open a certain door. I think we got hit with four fireballs in the round after opening a door.

So while PotA is a stretch, there is a different adventure with a fireball heavy encounter that'll mess up a group. Twas most unpleasant.

[Dork_Forge]

If you're looking for an absurd number of fireballs in an encounter, there're just too damn many Flameskulls in the Amber Temple after you open a certain door. I think we got hit with four fireballs in the round after opening a door.

So while PotA is a stretch, there is a different adventure with a fireball heavy encounter that'll mess up a group. Twas most unpleasant.

Entirely different situation though:

The Amber Temple is recommended for level 10, even a Con +1 Wizard at that level can fail a Fireball and still be at just under half health at that level, whilst Monks and Rogues have had Evasion for a few levels already.

The environment is also entirely different, the Flameskulls are behind arrow slits that means as soon as they do anything (which is only after the Arcanoloth casts) the party can just move back up the stairs out of their line of sight and then go deal with them at their leisure.

The additional 5 levels in comparison to the original suggested scenario make the biggest difference here though, the change in reousrces, abilities and just raw hp diffuse a lot of the initial danger in comparison.

Edit: Actually rereading what you wrote: So you didn't go down the stairs and instead went right to them? That'd be rough, but there's only three of them (so max 3 Fireballs) and the DC is low to pass.

[OldTrees1]

Entirely different situation though:

The Amber Temple is recommended for level 10, even a Con +1 Wizard at that level can fail a Fireball and still be at just under half health at that level, whilst Monks and Rogues have had Evasion for a few levels already.

The environment is also entirely different, the Flameskulls are behind arrow slits that means as soon as they do anything (which is only after the Arcanoloth casts) the party can just move back up the stairs out of their line of sight and then go deal with them at their leisure.

The additional 5 levels in comparison to the original suggested scenario make the biggest difference here though, the change in reousrces, abilities and just raw hp diffuse a lot of the initial danger in comparison.


You are thinking of a different encounter. loki_ragnarock mentioned a door. I believe this might be the encounter where the skulls fly, not the one with the arrow slits.

[Dork_Forge]

You are thinking of a different encounter. loki_ragnarock mentioned a door. I believe this might be the encounter where the skulls fly, not the one with the arrow slits.


Ohhh the Vault of Shalx? That one can be nasty if you don't do the room above it first, though unlike the main area there isn't any guidance to immedately Fireball the PCs for that encounter, that's DM discretion.

[OldTrees1]

Ohhh the Vault of Shalx? That one can be nasty if you don't do the room above it first, though unlike the main area there isn't any guidance to immedately Fireball the PCs for that encounter, that's DM discretion.

Yes, that is the location I am guessing loki_ragnarock is talking about. When I ran that encounter the PCs were in the room above it. So an initial volley of fireballs made sense. Of course I knew this party could survive 8 fireballs so I was not so worried.

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, that is the location I am guessing loki_ragnarock is talking about. When I ran that encounter the PCs were in the room above it. So an initial volley of fireballs made sense. Of course I knew this party could survive 8 fireballs so I was not so worried.

8 Fireballs? Three Flameskulls that can cast Fireball once each?

Or was that the total by the time they got to the room?

[Eldariel]

The only time anyone at our table has ever taken alert was when he was specifically trying to make a perception master! No one else's has ever bothered to take it. Going first is nice, but I find being more likely to do what you need to when you go is more important.

Hmm, to this I say "Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!" It might not be apparent how good it is but even if you don't have the strongest actions in the game, winning Initiative is basically +1 turn (free action surge + bonus action + movement + reaction) compared to losing it. And avoiding surprise another. So in cases where you're surprised you actually are guaranteed +1 turn and there's a somewhat relevant chance of getting another one.

And that's before we get to the third clause which means that there's very few downsides to you for being blind (except not being able to use targeted spells) and that any kind of vision denial effect also gives you Blur benefits.

Initiative is one of those things that's deceptively powerful but doesn't really feel that way. I'll have to say, whenever I or my friends have run Alert Wizards though (we had two in one campaign), the amount of fights that have been turned from rough ones to trivial ones is amazing. Like the Roper example? It's from my own game and I was playing the Wizard (level 5 Diviner to be precise). They have False Appearance so they're basically guaranteed surprise meaning they get to restrain someone, reel them in and bite them at advantage before the party likely gets to do anything. Except when there's an Alert Wizard in the party: Hypnotic Pattern and Portent later we actually just walked away since we weren't interested in killing random monsters of little consequence (it was basically an abandoned sewer system in a post-apocalypticish world so not all that many people were like to be bothered by them and the ones that could be were much more likely to be against civilisation than for it). There were only two Ropers there but even if there were four, stopping two of them dead would've been a huge reduction in party threat (we were a 4-person party at that time with Knowledge Cleric/Open Hand Monk/Swords Bard/Diviner Wizard).

There was also a fight where we got ambushed by Goblins and a Bugbear: Alert single-handedly saved the party from a certain death. Similarly, against Goblins in the first encounter of LMoP, Alert Wizard removed two Goblins before they even got to act (had a Bat that managed to pinpoint them in spite of their hiding). As for non-surprise stops, some of the most crucial ones involved fighting a bunch of Specters (that came through the hull of the ship we were on) where Alert simply let me reposition so that I wasn't taking the brunt of their attacks and cast Dragon's Breath + Chill Touch (not optimal but didn't have anything better available) before they got to act - which combined with the Bard's turn was able to knock one down [20 HP at resistance is surprisingly much]). The Bulezau fight was also one where Levitate sufficed to take one out of the fight. And we had a pair of Mummies raise up from coffers where Alert enabled Levitating one before they got to hit us.

Overall, I'd say I've gotten good value of it in nearly ~30%-40% of the encounters we played. Which is pretty crazy for a feat. Especially since those have tended to be some of the more dangerous encounters. I've also DMed for both, an Abjurer Tank Wizard and an Alert War Wizard and I have to say, while the Abjurer Tank Wizard is a pain in many senses (Mountain Dwarf as it happens), the Alert War Wizard just removes the actual threatening encounters from the game way more often. Abjurer is very hard to put down and does a good job of standing in the front and being incredibly hard to deal with but in many cases, the War Wizard's first big action just tips the scales of the entire encounter.


When you use such an extreme scenario as an example, that scenario does matter to some degree.

I agree getting early CC off is very beneficial, I just don't think it's as make or break as you seem to and given the choice between a Wizard with Alert or with +2 Int, I'd take the latter everytime unless the campaign featured invisible/stealth heavy enemies very prevalently. However most don't so it's the vast majority of the time just an initiative boost.

My main contention here is that it must be a Wizard (or Arcane caster or... any caster) that needs to go first to make a difference. On multiple occasions the greataxe wielding battle master in one game has cut through a swath of enemies when at the top of initiative with Action Surge, same with the Barbarian/Rogue, or the Ranger/Rogue or any number of Paladins.

I've also seen the Bardlock get off Slow early and shift the course of combat. Then again I've also seen the Bardlock (maxed Cha) fail to get CC to stick at all, or only on half etc.

Relying on CC with a delayed progression Int, or well ever is not convincing to me because I've seen it fail often enough and know that it can fail in many ways.

As for Alert on a Wizard, tbh if I wanted a Wizard with high initiative I'd have just played a War Wizard or Chronurgist.

Why not both? Chronurgist/War Wizard with Alert is very good (indeed, surprise is one of those things that can mess up high Init characters otherwise). And yes, of course all classes have situations where they can do huge things with one turn, Wizards (and often, to varying degrees, also Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks) are just the ones with highest likelihood of having something that's extremely likely to work. The odds of Fighter or Paladin being able to nova down a big bad are way worse than the odds of a caster being able to CC them so going first isn't worth that much for them.

But make no mistake! Of course going first is worth it for any PC. Going before the bad guys is almost always an extra turn pretty much (Legendary Actions make it slightly less than that but still worth it) and that means every point towards that is pretty valuable (one of the reasons Dex is such a strong stat). Wizard going first doesn't prevent the others from going before the enemy: everyone going before the enemy is ideal! Note however, Wizard's actions are probably also some of the most likely to enhance others' actions [probably behind Clerics]: stuff like Web, Suggestion, Hold X, Blindness, etc. can often grant advantage and in some cases even autocrits to allies who might be attacking the targets you're disabling so the Wizard going first is also favourable in that regard (and of course when wanting to deploy buffs like Haste), to the point that if Delay-type rules are allowed, the other PCs may be actively inclined to drop after the Wizard. Which of course makes it doubly important that the Wizard goes first because otherwise the other characters are forced to take their own actions at lesser advantages too.

[OldTrees1]

8 Fireballs? Three Flameskulls that can cast Fireball once each?

Or was that the total by the time they got to the room?

I think I had doubled the number of Flameskulls because I knew that 6 was less than 8. This was a party with a Cleric max casting AID, a bard with Inspiring Leader, and a Paladin of Ancients, plus the other half of the group.

[MaxWilson]

But make no mistake! Of course going first is worth it for any PC. Going before the bad guys is almost always an extra turn pretty much (Legendary Actions make it slightly less than that but still worth it) and that means every point towards that is pretty valuable (one of the reasons Dex is such a strong stat). Wizard going first doesn't prevent the others from going before the enemy: everyone going before the enemy is ideal! Note however, Wizard's actions are probably also some of the most likely to enhance others' actions [probably behind Clerics]: stuff like Web, Suggestion, Hold X, Blindness, etc. can often grant advantage and in some cases even autocrits to allies who might be attacking the targets you're disabling so the Wizard going first is also favourable in that regard (and of course when wanting to deploy buffs like Haste), to the point that if Delay-type rules are allowed, the other PCs may be actively inclined to drop after the Wizard. Which of course makes it doubly important that the Wizard goes first because otherwise the other characters are forced to take their own actions at lesser advantages too.

It's only worth an extra turn under whatever circumstances the fight begins, and not all turns are equal. E.g. an extra turn at 300 yards when 80% of the enemy force is still hidden in the trees is not as useful as an extra turn from 5' away from the enemy leader who has been identified and is currently paralyzed by a Hold Person spell.

Therefore, the value of initiative is highly circumstantial and has a lot to do with how your individual DM builds encounters and when they tend to call for initiative rolls. That makes initiative very similar and complementary to Stealth or other forms of recon (such as Chainlock familiars, Arcane Eye, social engineering or interrogating NPCs, stealing enemy documents, Scrying, and/or good use of disguises or illusions), although high initiative is certainly the easiest one to use (but has a lower payoff than the others).

[Dork_Forge]

And that's before we get to the third clause which means that there's very few downsides to you for being blind (except not being able to use targeted spells) and that any kind of vision denial effect also gives you Blur benefits.

Kneecapping you spellcasting and any attacks you might make is very significant. Especially since you advocate for crossbow usage in Tier 1 and I believe Alert was what you suggested for the V. Human feat...



Why not both? Chronurgist/War Wizard with Alert is very good (indeed, surprise is one of those things that can mess up high Init characters otherwise). And yes, of course all classes have situations where they can do huge things with one turn, Wizards (and often, to varying degrees, also Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks) are just the ones with highest likelihood of having something that's extremely likely to work. The odds of Fighter or Paladin being able to nova down a big bad are way worse than the odds of a caster being able to CC them so going first isn't worth that much for them.

You can of course stack initiative boosts until the cows come home, but at the end of the day I'd rather keep up the Int or take a different feat that enhances the role I'm trying to fill better if the subclass is providing an initiative bump anyway.

Now you're talking about a big bad? I thought this was an average kind of scenario, a 'big bad' is likely to be the worst candidate for this with the high chance of Legendary Resistance, maybe Magic resistance etc.

The odds of nova'ing a big bad to death as a single character are basically nonexistant, knee capping said big bad with on hit effects, shove/grapple or just drawing aggro to the point where the big bad focuses on them anyway.

The only realy exception to me for a caster universally being better at going first (realistically it depends on overall initiative and whether lair or other environmental effects are in play) is Spike Growth, but that's because Spike Growth is an insane spell.


But make no mistake! Of course going first is worth it for any PC. Going before the bad guys is almost always an extra turn pretty much (Legendary Actions make it slightly less than that but still worth it) and that means every point towards that is pretty valuable (one of the reasons Dex is such a strong stat). Wizard going first doesn't prevent the others from going before the enemy: everyone going before the enemy is ideal! Note however, Wizard's actions are probably also some of the most likely to enhance others' actions [probably behind Clerics]: stuff like Web, Suggestion, Hold X, Blindness, etc. can often grant advantage and in some cases even autocrits to allies who might be attacking the targets you're disabling so the Wizard going first is also favourable in that regard (and of course when wanting to deploy buffs like Haste), to the point that if Delay-type rules are allowed, the other PCs may be actively inclined to drop after the Wizard. Which of course makes it doubly important that the Wizard goes first because otherwise the other characters are forced to take their own actions at lesser advantages too.

Devil's advocate: Going first as a Wizard paints you with a massive target for focus fire in comparison to others to intelligent enemies

Also I'm curious so why not: What Suggestion are you deploying in combat that is not harmful? Since combat is 90% of the time to the death, anything that hinders their combat effectiveness is directly harmful.



I think I had doubled the number of Flameskulls because I knew that 6 was less than 8. This was a party with a Cleric max casting AID, a bard with Inspiring Leader, and a Paladin of Ancients, plus the other half of the group.

Yeesh that is a party built to survive! I bet they had a blast taking it all on!

[Eldariel]

It's only worth an extra turn under whatever circumstances the fight begins, and not all turns are equal. E.g. an extra turn at 300 yards when 80% of the enemy force is still hidden in the trees is not as useful as an extra turn from 5' away from the enemy leader who has been identified and is currently paralyzed by a Hold Person spell.

That's also true. However, it is my experience that DMs rarely call for Initiative at a range where participants cannot affect each other so 300 yards is the kind of range that I would not expect to see very often (except in situations where one side has like a siege weapon or very long range spells or some prep/buff type that involves enemy contact). But certainly, there are times when high Initiative will not be that impactful and as you say, it works great with stealth and scouting (indeed, surprise and winning Initiative can make basically any encounter a cakewalk as long as you have means to affect the enemy). Perhaps I should rephrase this in a slightly softer way: when enemy is within your awareness and effective range, it is often downright crucial. The rest of the time, it ranges from useful to fairly trivial. As you say, it's again a thing where DM style matters but I do posit that, at least with smart tactical and strategic play on the party's part, the Initiative victories should generally be more useful than not.

[MaxWilson]

That's also true. However, it is my experience that DMs rarely call for Initiative at a range where participants cannot affect each other so 300 yards is the kind of range that I would not expect to see very often (except in situations where one side has like a siege weapon or very long range spells or some prep/buff type that involves enemy contact). But certainly, there are times when high Initiative will not be that impactful and as you say, it works great with stealth and scouting (indeed, surprise and winning Initiative can make basically any encounter a cakewalk as long as you have means to affect the enemy). Perhaps I should rephrase this in a slightly softer way: when enemy is within your awareness and effective range, it is often downright crucial. The rest of the time, it ranges from useful to fairly trivial. As you say, it's again a thing where DM style matters but I do posit that, at least with smart tactical and strategic play on the party's part, the Initiative victories should generally be more useful than not.

That sounds totally reasonable.

I do think there are definitely useful things PCs would want to do even before they get in range to effect the enemy (Devotion's Sacred Weapon ability, wizards casting Haste) so I would encourage DMs to start tracking rounds/turns earlier than many DMs apparently do--I loathe the playstyle that makes monsters basically pop out of thin air at a distance of 30' from the party. But I also realize and acknowledge that many or most DMs do exactly as you say, which does tend to make initiative very important at those tables.

Related point: the best time to Action Surge is not necessarily the first round.

[Eldariel]

Kneecapping you spellcasting and any attacks you might make is very significant. Especially since you advocate for crossbow usage in Tier 1 and I believe Alert was what you suggested for the V. Human feat...

Your attacks are done normally since you have unseen attacker and enemies have heavy obscurement cancelling each other out. You obviously just either walk out to cast and walk back in (if you need targeted spells) or cast AOEs that don't depend on vision (which is, surprisingly, most of them). Generally I haven't found the downsides to be significant as long as you are mindful of the scenario you're dropping the spell in (i.e. obviously you need to actually be at the risk of being targeted for it to be worth anything, and it needs to be a severe enough threat to be worth the action).


Now you're talking about a big bad? I thought this was an average kind of scenario, a 'big bad' is likely to be the worst candidate for this with the high chance of Legendary Resistance, maybe Magic resistance etc.

Pardon the unclarity, by big bad I meant "a big bad guy", i.e. an enemy of (offensive) importance, not necessarily a BBEG or some sort of enemy boss. Just something that's not just a mook but someone who is going to be actually dangerous to the party. Obviously it's something where a single target DPR specialist like Fighter or Paladin is worth more than they are on average, since good single target DPR means their action has a higher than average chance of dropping or severely handicapping a dangerous enemy.


Devil's advocate: Going first as a Wizard paints you with a massive target for focus fire in comparison to others to intelligent enemies

Worth it. Let them try. If you're positioned well (and since you went first, you've got the chance to move first too and prone yourself if you aren't under melee threat but are under ranged threat), this can be very advantageous to your party.


Also I'm curious so why not: What Suggestion are you deploying in combat that is not harmful? Since combat is 90% of the time to the death, anything that hinders their combat effectiveness is directly harmful.

That's so far down DM purview it's not worth discussing here. Suffice to say, lots of people disagree with your interpretation of what "harmful" means and they are no less right than you are. Stackexchange on the topic if you're interested (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/87665/how-do-i-decide-what-is-a-reasonable-suggestion). Obviously all views are present and it's just "ask your DM"-kinda thing.



That sounds totally reasonable.

I do think there are definitely useful things PCs would want to do even before they get in range to effect the enemy (Devotion's Sacred Weapon ability, wizards casting Haste) so I would encourage DMs to start tracking rounds/turns earlier than many DMs apparently do--I loathe the playstyle that makes monsters basically pop out of thin air at a distance of 30' from the party. But I also realize and acknowledge that many or most DMs do exactly as you say, which does tend to make initiative very important at those tables.

Related point: the best time to Action Surge is not necessarily the first round.

Indeed, Action Surge is more controllable which is a great feature. OTOH winning Initiative gets you two other actions (bonus action and reaction) plus movement. The way I like to run those prep spells is that if there's no combat action happening, I just do them outside Initiative even if both parties are aware of each other to keep things flowing and just keep a mental track of how long approximately both sides spend e.g. casting buffs or carefully approaching or whatever.

Related: Shared Initiative makes this so much less important (which I kinda like - I do think Initiative is too strong in RAW 5e especially at relatively short encounter ranges).

[MaxWilson]

Indeed, Action Surge is more controllable which is a great feature. OTOH winning Initiative gets you two other actions (bonus action and reaction) plus movement. The way I like to run those prep spells is that if there's no combat action happening, I just do them outside Initiative even if both parties are aware of each other to keep things flowing and just keep a mental track of how long approximately both sides spend e.g. casting buffs or carefully approaching or whatever.

What do you do if one of the PCs wants to "start initiative", e.g. because they have a low Dexterity, and starts firing arrows or something from long range specifically to force initiative rolls?

[Eldariel]

What do you do if one of the PCs wants to "start initiative", e.g. because they have a low Dexterity, and starts firing arrows or something from long range specifically to force initiative rolls?

I haven't ended up in that situation yet - it's one of those gamist idiocies I really dislike in 5e. But generally, if the player is within effective range of an enemy and aware of the enemy, I would of course have them roll Initiative. That is, if he had a Longbow and went within 600' and was aware of the opponents, I'd just have the Initiative rolled automatically. Or would've - I've moved more and more towards your WEGO system, where obviously there's no need for the Initiative to be rolled before a contested action happens (though I use combat rounds more actively in that when aware parties are acting simultaneously to ensure about similar amounts of time take place - if no engagement occurs, it'll be apparent quickly enough and we can drop out).

[Dork_Forge]

Your attacks are done normally since you have unseen attacker and enemies have heavy obscurement cancelling each other out. You obviously just either walk out to cast and walk back in (if you need targeted spells) or cast AOEs that don't depend on vision (which is, surprisingly, most of them). Generally I haven't found the downsides to be significant as long as you are mindful of the scenario you're dropping the spell in (i.e. obviously you need to actually be at the risk of being targeted for it to be worth anything, and it needs to be a severe enough threat to be worth the action).

We have discussed this enough that I assumed whenever you talk about a Wizard there's the assumption of an Owl taking the Help action in addition.

Here's a few downsides:

-It will likely have negative consequences for your party

-loss of vision impacts CC affects more than damage, unless we assume the Wizard is stretching their list thin with everything

-There's literally nothing stopping an enemy walking up to you in this situation, loss of sight shuts down OA



Pardon the unclarity, by big bad I meant "a big bad guy", i.e. an enemy of (offensive) importance, not necessarily a BBEG or some sort of enemy boss. Just something that's not just a mook but someone who is going to be actually dangerous to the party. Obviously it's something where a single target DPR specialist like Fighter or Paladin is worth more than they are on average, since good single target DPR means their action has a higher than average chance of dropping or severely handicapping a dangerous enemy.

THank you for the calrification, the sudden shift was confusing.

Not just the damage, but also the potential control they can also inflict


Worth it. Let them try. If you're positioned well (and since you went first, you've got the chance to move first too and prone yourself if you aren't under melee threat but are under ranged threat), this can be very advantageous to your party.

This... is very confident. It's pretty common for monsters to have higher than the average PC speed, but here's an example that highlights why I don't find this convincing:

In one of my games it's a 3 person party with a raft of sidekicks, then I let them choose one or two (depending on the situation) to take into combat like a Mass Effect squad. The Bard and the sidekick caster (sidekicks are player controlled, caster the arcane variety) hunkered down at the edge of effective range (I want to say about 30' behind the party, which was in turn 40-50' from the enemies).

The Bard went first and used Slow, affecting most of the horde of enemies but not all (and imx never all of an encounter).

The slowed creatures engaged what they could reach and dashed to close to what they couldn't, the unslowed creatures dashed in the Bard's face. The Bard was now out of luck since they'd provoke OA, their main ranged option (EB+AB) was at disadvantage and on the subsequent turn said creature went on to severely injure the Bard and made him drop concentration (a bunch of DC10s, I wanna say his save is +3, had he been within 10 ft of the Paladin...). Separating yourself from combat as a squishier caster and hoping that the range protects you is... very ambitious, because if the DM does close on you, then you're screwed since the party will likely be engaged already. If you prone yourself to game ranged attacks (and sorry, it is gaming them because outside of a sniping scenario who's really dropping prone in combat?) then you're handing yourself on platter by gimping your mobilty and potentially offering advantage, worse if they choose to grapple and keep you prone.


That's so far down DM purview it's not worth discussing here. Suffice to say, lots of people disagree with your interpretation of what "harmful" means and they are no less right than you are. Stackexchange on the topic if you're interested (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/87665/how-do-i-decide-what-is-a-reasonable-suggestion). Obviously all views are present and it's just "ask your DM"-kinda thing.


I agree that it's very DM heavy... but you're the one that mentioned it so I asked. If something is 'so far down DM purview it's not worth discussing here' then I don't consider it a valid example.

My own position on the matter: If Suggestion is useable in combat that it largely invalidates the existance of Command, a higher level spell with tighter restriction.


Indeed, Action Surge is more controllable which is a great feature. OTOH winning Initiative gets you two other actions (bonus action and reaction) plus movement.


Going first can be worse for Reactions if you have multiple enemies in the order. If you're in the middle then you at least have the chance to Absorb Elements/Shield as well as Counter Spell in the same round.

[Eldariel]

We have discussed this enough that I assumed whenever you talk about a Wizard there's the assumption of an Owl taking the Help action in addition.

Here's a few downsides:

-It will likely have negative consequences for your party

-loss of vision impacts CC affects more than damage, unless we assume the Wizard is stretching their list thin with everything

-There's literally nothing stopping an enemy walking up to you in this situation, loss of sight shuts down OA

Well, it all depends on how the fog, the allies and the enemies are positioned. Generally, Pyrotechnics is for example something you can drop "behind your own lines" when subjected to targeted effects plus ranged attacks. Your allies can then take cover or not at their own prerogative. If you're at melee threat, it's true that if your potentially assisting allies are caught in, on one hand that enemies can approach you freely but it's also true that if you're casting the spell, they could probably do that anyways [obviously you won't cast it if you're under no melee threat and have allies blocking enemies] and you just want them to attack you at disadvantage so you can leverage your Shield more and hopefully make them waste turns trying to attack you.


This... is very confident. It's pretty common for monsters to have higher than the average PC speed, but here's an example that highlights why I don't find this convincing:

In one of my games it's a 3 person party with a raft of sidekicks, then I let them choose one or two (depending on the situation) to take into combat like a Mass Effect squad. The Bard and the sidekick caster (sidekicks are player controlled, caster the arcane variety) hunkered down at the edge of effective range (I want to say about 30' behind the party, which was in turn 40-50' from the enemies).

The Bard went first and used Slow, affecting most of the horde of enemies but not all (and imx never all of an encounter).

The slowed creatures engaged what they could reach and dashed to close to what they couldn't, the unslowed creatures dashed in the Bard's face. The Bard was now out of luck since they'd provoke OA, their main ranged option (EB+AB) was at disadvantage and on the subsequent turn said creature went on to severely injure the Bard and made him drop concentration (a bunch of DC10s, I wanna say his save is +3, had he been within 10 ft of the Paladin...). Separating yourself from combat as a squishier caster and hoping that the range protects you is... very ambitious, because if the DM does close on you, then you're screwed since the party will likely be engaged already. If you prone yourself to game ranged attacks (and sorry, it is gaming them because outside of a sniping scenario who's really dropping prone in combat?) then you're handing yourself on platter by gimping your mobilty and potentially offering advantage, worse if they choose to grapple and keep you prone.

This is one of those scenarios where that Pyrotechnics with Alert would be very welcome. ;) But of course, it's a Bard so that's not in the cards and neither is Shield, both of which are huge contributors to a Wizard's surprising durability. I also assume the Bard didn't have Moderately Armored so his AC wasn't all that amazing? That said, if the situation allowed it, he could've probably moved so that the enemies would have a hard time reaching him.

I also don't agree about dropping prone being gaming the system: it's what we do in the military. It's literally the best way to protect yourself from any firearms - prone targets are much harder to hit at longer ranges than standing ones (so much so that firing practice ranges are at about three times shorter ranges when firing at "prone" targets). This is at 30m (~100ft.) but obviously even closer, a prone target is much harder to hit than a standing one. Plus characters in the system should play by the rules of the system rather than by rules of the real world: far as the game reality is concerned, since prone targets are harder to hit, it makes sense for characters to go prone at every point where they'd be attacked only at range since that confers them significant protection against it. We shouldn't pretend that game constructs are


I agree that it's very DM heavy... but you're the one that mentioned it so I asked. If something is 'so far down DM purview it's not worth discussing here' then I don't consider it a valid example.

Well, in this case any other CC spells would've accomplished the same. It could've been a Levitate or Phantasmal Force or any such. But since you asked, I recall some Suggestions I've personally used:
- "Go attack X to empower yourself." [enemy contained a Priest who actively was provoking OAs and trying to get hit to proc an ability that gave them and their allies temporary HP; the target of the Suggestion was a demon who was inclined to hit said ally anyways]
- "Stop the [party Paladin]'s bleeding to keep them for interrogation" [party Paladin had been downed and was bleeding out, enemy looked to be winning the fight, cast on a Bugbear]
- "Tell your lackeys off and fight me one on one" [target was a mercenary leader extremely proud of their martial prowess and big into dueling]

They've pretty much always been constructed in the situation and pretty reasonable at least on the surface level.


My own position on the matter: If Suggestion is useable in combat that it largely invalidates the existance of Command, a higher level spell with tighter restriction.

Hum? Command is a level 1 spell without Concentration while Suggestion is a level 2 spell with Concentration (and a great duration). Command can also multitarget by upcasting while Suggestion can't. If anything, I'd think the contrary: Command largely invalidates combat uses of Suggestion but since they're on separate lists, I don't consider that such a big deal.


Going first can be worse for Reactions if you have multiple enemies in the order. If you're in the middle then you at least have the chance to Absorb Elements/Shield as well as Counter Spell in the same round.

True. This is one of the reasons I probably would nowadays just walk out of a game that used RAW Initiative: without the ability to properly delay your turn (or take all turns simultaneously), you just get all sorts of nonsense (other examples are that sometimes you just can't sequence party actions reasonably because the internal Initiative order e.g. means that the Fighter has to hit (or lose their opportunity to Action Surge and bonus action attack) before getting buffed or the Druid has to cast before the Wizard had the chance to Dispel enemy's protection spell or whatever).

[Dork_Forge]

Well, it all depends on how the fog, the allies and the enemies are positioned. Generally, Pyrotechnics is for example something you can drop "behind your own lines" when subjected to targeted effects plus ranged attacks. Your allies can then take cover or not at their own prerogative. If you're at melee threat, it's true that if your potentially assisting allies are caught in, on one hand that enemies can approach you freely but it's also true that if you're casting the spell, they could probably do that anyways [obviously you won't cast it if you're under no melee threat and have allies blocking enemies] and you just want them to attack you at disadvantage so you can leverage your Shield more and hopefully make them waste turns trying to attack you.

I'm guessing that you're choosing Pyrotechnics because it's non concentration? A 40ft diameter is a significant area to be 'behind your own lines' whilst still giving your allies a choice.

This makes me curious what's your normal encounter 'map' size and how far away do you assume the Wizard chooses to be?

Also... how are you just dropping a spell that requires nonmagical fire to already be in the environment?


This is one of those scenarios where that Pyrotechnics with Alert would be very welcome. ;) But of course, it's a Bard so that's not in the cards and neither is Shield, both of which are huge contributors to a Wizard's surprising durability. I also assume the Bard didn't have Moderately Armored so his AC wasn't all that amazing? That said, if the situation allowed it, he could've probably moved so that the enemies would have a hard time reaching him.

Bard's AC is 15 and he couldn't be further away without rounding a corner and no longer being able to see the meat of the fight to actually help. He started as far away as he could whilst still being able to meaningfully act

Ahh, so it's actually vision denial+Alert+having a reaction and slot for Shield, that makes more sense and not surprisingly is more expensive.





I also don't agree about dropping prone being gaming the system: it's what we do in the military. It's literally the best way to protect yourself from any firearms - prone targets are much harder to hit at longer ranges than standing ones (so much so that firing practice ranges are at about three times shorter ranges when firing at "prone" targets). This is at 30m (~100ft.) but obviously even closer, a prone target is much harder to hit than a standing one. Plus characters in the system should play by the rules of the system rather than by rules of the real world: far as the game reality is concerned, since prone targets are harder to hit, it makes sense for characters to go prone at every point where they'd be attacked only at range since that confers them significant protection against it. We shouldn't pretend that game constructs are

Just FYI you cut off mid sentence here.

Combat in a dnd world is nothing like modern military combat, I find the example inherently flawed.

Yes they are harder to hit, they are also putting themselves at a significant mobility disadvantage and risk of getting attacked at advantage. Making the decision to lie down in combat seems more like a 'this will give them disadvantage and I can mitigate if they close' thought process rather than 'I'm fighting for my life and lying down can also be handing myself over on a plate' That's besides the pride/how unnatural it is to just throw yourself face down in the dirt. But whatever this is just differing of opinion on versimillitude.


Well, in this case any other CC spells would've accomplished the same. It could've been a Levitate or Phantasmal Force or any such. But since you asked, I recall some Suggestions I've personally used:
- "Go attack X to empower yourself." [enemy contained a Priest who actively was provoking OAs and trying to get hit to proc an ability that gave them and their allies temporary HP; the target of the Suggestion was a demon who was inclined to hit said ally anyways]
- "Stop the [party Paladin]'s bleeding to keep them for interrogation" [party Paladin had been downed and was bleeding out, enemy looked to be winning the fight, cast on a Bugbear]
- "Tell your lackeys off and fight me one on one" [target was a mercenary leader extremely proud of their martial prowess and big into dueling]

They've pretty much always been constructed in the situation and pretty reasonable at least on the surface level.

Are very niche, appropriate uses though I don't agree with a Bugbear finding that reasonable (this can vary based on what they're like in the given world, stock they despise being bossed around and are not the interrogation kind).


Hum? Command is a level 1 spell without Concentration while Suggestion is a level 2 spell with Concentration (and a great duration). Command can also multitarget by upcasting while Suggestion can't. If anything, I'd think the contrary: Command largely invalidates combat uses of Suggestion but since they're on separate lists, I don't consider that such a big deal.

My bad got the levels backwards in my head but my point is pretty much the same: they're both tell people to do stuff spells, but one is clearly more orientated towards combat with given examples whereas the other has a clause that can easily work directly against combat use.

Note: They do now overlap for Bards using the optional list expansion and already overlap for the knowledge Cleric that gets them both as domain spells


True. This is one of the reasons I probably would nowadays just walk out of a game that used RAW Initiative: without the ability to properly delay your turn (or take all turns simultaneously), you just get all sorts of nonsense (other examples are that sometimes you just can't sequence party actions reasonably because the internal Initiative order e.g. means that the Fighter has to hit (or lose their opportunity to Action Surge and bonus action attack) before getting buffed or the Druid has to cast before the Wizard had the chance to Dispel enemy's protection spell or whatever).

That... is not nonesense that's the intention of intiative, everyone reacts at different speeds and that can hamper how cohesive combat response is. It isn't convenient, I find that aspect actually fairly realistic (the Fighter's muscle memory can inact the tried and true 'kill them with violence' before the caster sorts through their catalogue of available options and then performs the casting.'

I don't want to misunderstand your point here, it just seems like what you deem as nonsense is inconvenience, does this actually seem unrealistic to you in some way?

[MaxWilson]

Also... how are you just dropping a spell that requires nonmagical fire to already be in the environment?

The usual trick for Pyrotechnics fans is to carry a torch or hooded lantern.

[Eldariel]

I'm guessing that you're choosing Pyrotechnics because it's non concentration? A 40ft diameter is a significant area to be 'behind your own lines' whilst still giving your allies a choice.

This makes me curious what's your normal encounter 'map' size and how far away do you assume the Wizard chooses to be?

Also... how are you just dropping a spell that requires nonmagical fire to already be in the environment?

Generally having your familiar or unseen servant or whatever light a torch will suffice if you don't already have any source of fire handy (concealed lantern is another one you can easily keep active; in many case there's little downside to having a familiar carry e.g. Bullseye Lantern with a hood allowing them to remove the hood as an item interaction).

Shield is of course only used when enemies happen to roll an attack that lands in that area: it's just an extra layer of defense for when necessary. Even 16 AC at disadvantage is pretty rough for those +4-+6 level enemies to hit (20% hit rate for +4, 30% hit rate for +6). So it's not like you'll actually have to use it all that often.

As for map size, that really depends but we've never restricted ourselves to maps: if there's terrain, the terrain is usable whether it's there or not. There's almost always a corridor you came from or a direction you're arriving from where you can land an effect comfortably behind yourself. Actual maps range from ~200'/200' to 1000'/1000' depending on what the DM has got to work with (I use a lot of premade maps and just expand them when I'm DMing for example; e.g. Cragmaw Castle from LMoP I simply added ~100' in every direction and included a war camp and forest clearing with the trees at the far edges, rotating guards, and further away circles of wolf rider patrols).


Bard's AC is 15 and he couldn't be further away without rounding a corner and no longer being able to see the meat of the fight to actually help. He started as far away as he could whilst still being able to meaningfully act

Ahh, so it's actually vision denial+Alert+having a reaction and slot for Shield, that makes more sense and not surprisingly is more expensive.

Well, vision denial is obviously the action free part. You'll only use Shield if necessary. Indeed, if you've got it you'll obviously always use Shield when it's worthwhile: it's just a good spell that compounds other forms of defense.

I think not being able to see the combat after you drop a big spell is totally fine and I would've taken the turn (indeed, I actively seek breaking LoS and LoE so that my Concentration is harder to break) if I knew that it would be safe. Of course regardless, there might be times where you will be caught in melee.


Just FYI you cut off mid sentence here.

Combat in a dnd world is nothing like modern military combat, I find the example inherently flawed.

Yes they are harder to hit, they are also putting themselves at a significant mobility disadvantage and risk of getting attacked at advantage. Making the decision to lie down in combat seems more like a 'this will give them disadvantage and I can mitigate if they close' thought process rather than 'I'm fighting for my life and lying down can also be handing myself over on a plate' That's besides the pride/how unnatural it is to just throw yourself face down in the dirt. But whatever this is just differing of opinion on versimillitude.

You aren't lying down, you're trying to avoid projectiles. It's not a matter of pride to not want to get shot in the chest by weapons that can indeed penetrate armor with relative impunity. It's just stupidity to stand if you've got the option to throw yourself down [i.e. nobody nearby able to capitalise on your weakness to melee attacks], and obviously you'll crawl rather than walk when under heavy fire (of course, volley fire is different where prone characters would actually potentially be more likely to be hit, but that's something D&D doesn't model). The thought process is "I don't want to die so I'll take cover if I can afford it." Think less "lying down" and more "hitting the deck".

Of course, if you're getting kited you can't afford this so it isn't that useful for melee, and ranged characters can't attack prone so there's that. Spellcasters though? It's all upside and no downside other than reducing your movement options for the next turn. It's much better to take less risk of damage and safer Concentration over extra mobility in many cases.


Are very niche, appropriate uses though I don't agree with a Bugbear finding that reasonable (this can vary based on what they're like in the given world, stock they despise being bossed around and are not the interrogation kind).

Well, in that campaign settings they were basically lackeys for Dragon overlords who were waging a war against our country. But yeah, it depends.


My bad got the levels backwards in my head but my point is pretty much the same: they're both tell people to do stuff spells, but one is clearly more orientated towards combat with given examples whereas the other has a clause that can easily work directly against combat use.

Note: They do now overlap for Bards using the optional list expansion and already overlap for the knowledge Cleric that gets them both as domain spells

Mhm, but just the fact that Suggestion is Concentration makes me think there's nothing wrong with allowing it for combat. Indeed, it almost feels intended for combat use since Concentration is a mechanic that predominantly matters when damage gets thrown around. FWIW it's infuriating to fight against: we had to escape a villageful of Yuan-Ti Purebloods on level 3, and Suggestion did more than its part at making our life miserable (cost us our Rogue).


That... is not nonesense that's the intention of intiative, everyone reacts at different speeds and that can hamper how cohesive combat response is. It isn't convenient, I find that aspect actually fairly realistic (the Fighter's muscle memory can inact the tried and true 'kill them with violence' before the caster sorts through their catalogue of available options and then performs the casting.'

I don't want to misunderstand your point here, it just seems like what you deem as nonsense is inconvenience, does this actually seem unrealistic to you in some way?

Yeah, it feels very unrealistic to me that a person who reacts quickly can't observe the situation and act when advantageous rather than throw themselves headfirst into the fray. Okay, for a Barbarian I could see that but for a smart character that just feels really off to me. If my friends are faster than the enemy and I'm faster than the enemy, I should have the luxury of letting my friends act first. And if I'm slower than the enemy and my friends are slower than the enemy, I should be able to let my friends act before me at little repercussions. I feel the faster person should have a control over when they act and ready action is sadly just left wanting (especially warriors who can't take extra attack with it are needlessly punished, but casters who have to burn their Concentration to ready a spell too: it creates dumb dynamics where acting fast may be a downside because party members you want to act before you rolled as they did).

Honestly, it's a purely gamist issue that reflects nothing in the game. Yes, it might sometimes reflect something but that's an accident, not by design. It can just as easily be the caster who has to cast the spell before the Fighter has a chance to move even though the Fighter would have plenty of time to move before the enemy gets to act. But this is just why I hate Initiative in general (and have since it was introduced), and much prefer simultaneous turns. They just address so many problems in the game (enable using facing, running chases reasonably, etc. too) and have very few downsides IME.

[stoutstien]

Definitely a large design challenge sitting there. Take all the races that have features that are only applicable in a narrow scope and make them as broad as the races that are concerned good or top tier. For example take something like the H orc's savage attack, which is narrow, low impact, and boring, and make it as alluring as halfling's lucky. Maybe add an extra damage/healing die when you roll a 1.

[Paladin777]

I think the Half orcs savage attack is a bad comparison because the half orc also has it's 'I don't drop' once per day, which I think is a lot more in line power-wise. Especially if he class has self-healing.


Though I do see your point.

[stoutstien]

I think the Half orcs savage attack is a bad comparison because the half orc also has it's 'I don't drop' once per day, which I think is a lot more in line power-wise. Especially if he class has self-healing.


Though I do see your point.

Lucky is also only half of the halfling's base racial package. They get subraces as well. Evening excluding the dragonmarks only Lightfoot have a feature that is more situational than relentless.

Relentless is very good but very situational which is fine but savage is the worse combination of being situational and not very good. The only reason they get rates so highly for some classes is that the other options have ridiculous amounts of redundancies built in.

For doing something like this your best bet is probably to taper back to PHB races and work from there. I think most people be happy to have nine really good racial options rather than 50 bad ones.

[Paladin777]

Lucky is also only half of the halfling's base racial package. They get subraces as well. Evening excluding the dragonmarks only Lightfoot have a feature that is more situational than relentless.

Relentless is very good but very situational which is fine but savage is the worse combination of being situational and not very good. The only reason they get rates so highly for some classes is that the other options have ridiculous amounts of redundancies built in.

For doing something like this your best bet is probably to taper back to PHB races and work from there. I think most people be happy to have nine really good racial options rather than 50 bad ones.

Relentless may be a bit situational, but it's a situation that happens to every PC sometime which makes its usefulness universal to every class. This is a good ability (which we agree on).

Fair enough on the preference for 9 good (read balanced) options over 50 bad ones.

[Witty Username]

That sounds totally reasonable.

I do think there are definitely useful things PCs would want to do even before they get in range to effect the enemy (Devotion's Sacred Weapon ability, wizards casting Haste) so I would encourage DMs to start tracking rounds/turns earlier than many DMs apparently do--I loathe the playstyle that makes monsters basically pop out of thin air at a distance of 30' from the party. But I also realize and acknowledge that many or most DMs do exactly as you say, which does tend to make initiative very important at those tables.

Related point: the best time to Action Surge is not necessarily the first round.

Personally I tend to handle high range pre/start of combat outside of initiative if the party is aware of the encounter, unless both sides have something meaningful at range.
I use a 60-120ft starting distance most of the time (120ft I think is the size of my grid map I use for reference).
As for my current party, they have killed every encounter that began at 100+ ft. distance without resources within roughly 2 rounds. They have two warlocks, two wizards, and an artificer, so they have plenty of ranged damage.