Did Tasha's go far enough?

[Anymage]

Where is that info from?

I would think DnD would be doing pretty well. Specially with the pandemic and such.

D&D is doing pretty well for D&D, and it's obviously the biggest boy in the tabletop RPG scene. It's still a comparatively niche hobby that doesn't push nearly the quantity of product (compare the absolute bank that someone will drop on something like Magic or Warhammer), and it makes sense that it only makes peanuts on the massive corporation scale.

On topic for the changes? If D&D were a point based game, I could see the value to racial packages. Buying the dwarf bundle would cost less than it would take to buy all the bits on a basic human, due to the fact that all the parts don't necessarily synergize.

D&D being the simple, default RPG that it is? I was one of the people who was skeptical when many of the Tasha's rules were offered for playtest. I'll be curious to see how much real build diversity we see in pbp games and anecdotes in the upcoming months.

[RossN]

at the same time I've never seen open discussion not be positive.

Two long, bitter and now locked threads on this subject in this forum beg to differ.

On the topic itself I actually find myself agreeing with Darth Credence here to my surprise. I don't like the Tasha's... rules at all, and it has left me very pessimistic for the direction of the game but at the same time if we have to have such customisation why not go the route of Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS and make species simply a skin?

[zinycor]

D&D is doing pretty well for D&D, and it's obviously the biggest boy in the tabletop RPG scene. It's still a comparatively niche hobby that doesn't push nearly the quantity of product (compare the absolute bank that someone will drop on something like Magic or Warhammer), and it makes sense that it only makes peanuts on the massive corporation scale.

Sure, Warhammer people may pay a lot, but the appeal is more niche than DnD. by sheer numbers, brand recognition, DnD Beyond books, Fantansy grounds subscriptions, and a ton of merchandising I would guess that DnD does pretty well.

Magic would surely take the advantage. I can see that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Two long, bitter and now locked threads on this subject in this forum beg to differ.

On the topic itself I actually find myself agreeing with Darth Credence here to my surprise. I don't like the Tasha's... rules at all, and it has left me very pessimistic for the direction of the game but at the same time if we have to have such customisation why not go the route of Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS and make species simply a skin?

I dislike the new rules as well, but strongly don't want to go down the "species == skin" route. Because it tears the heart out of worldbuilding and enforces only one possible route (that it's all basically one species). Which, to me as a worldbuilder is super constraining. And doesn't feel like D&D at all.

Furthermore, I'm of the strong opinion that mixing point-buy and class/level is always a mistake--you get the benefits of neither and the drawbacks of both. Go all the way or not at all. Class/level systems like D&D benefit from strong archetypes. Point buy systems benefit from total flexibility and modularity. Having flexibility in some small areas without modularity just means that your archetypes are weaker and your balance is impossible. Plus it introduces two incompatible build mindsets that you have to juggle--in this place you're making finely-detailed, point-driven choices (meaning that things are balanced based on some form of currency), while in that place you're choosing a set that will carry you throughout with much less choice. Basically, you make the system 100x more gameable (in the bad sense) while obliterating anything like thematics and setting coherence.

The real route would be to separate species and culture. Make the base races carry only the biological parts, sub-races for "common cultures", and then present setting designers (in the DMG or elsewhere) a flowchart and balance chart. Basically giving guidelines for setting designers to build their own subraces out of flexible pieces. That way, you have coherent races within a setting and settings that care about flexibility can expose more of that to the players if they want, while those that want more "traditional" races can present a set of setting-specific sub-races.

Of course, it means that you'd have to break the idea that all the PHB races (and others) are available everywhere, but that's a good thing IMO. Dwarves in FR and dwarves in Eberron should only be vaguely similar. For ease, they might even have the same base race but very different sub-race choices in the two settings. Not the current mishmash of "every dwarf PC everywhere is good with stone".

[Telwar]

D&D is doing pretty well for D&D, and it's obviously the biggest boy in the tabletop RPG scene. It's still a comparatively niche hobby that doesn't push nearly the quantity of product (compare the absolute bank that someone will drop on something like Magic or Warhammer), and it makes sense that it only makes peanuts on the massive corporation scale.

Disclaimer: I honestly don't remember where I saw the below, some bits were here and some bits were over on a thread on ENworld ages ago, so it's going to be a summary, AND I FREELY ADMIT SOME OF THIS MAY BE INCORRECT, MISSING DETAIL, OR MISUNDERSTOOD, but:

Hasbro bought WotC for Pokemon and Magic, not for D&D.
Divisions in Hasbro have to make revenue targets that are, even now in D&D's second golden age, basically unattainable for the tabletop.
To add insult to injury, video games etc do not count as revenue for D&D tabletop. Neither does fiction publishing, which I understand generates more revenue than the actual hardcovers. (I think D&D Beyond *does*, as did D&D Insider)
And to make things worse, the pitch for 4th edition, ahem, had an exceedingly rosy view of the revenue potential that was communicated to Corporate, which, when this was not hit, resulted in some very, very deep disappointment at Corporate.

So, as all of that is summed up, WotC tabletop is basically allowed to exist and function something akin to the comics division at Marvel, as a source of future content for other divisions, but has to meet profit targets such that they have determined the best path to profitability is to have fewer, but more impactful releases, and keep costs down as far as they can. They also have to be sure to not rock the boat sufficiently that, at some point, Hasbro Corporate doesn't think that the easiest answer to a question is to axe the division entirely.

[ImproperJustice]

I think this could all go away if classes provided stat bonuses due to training, instead of races and be done with it.

[enderlord99]

Perhaps they should have created a new class <snip> with abilities to help change the thinking of anyone who disagrees with them.

You mean the bard?

[intregus]

I think Tasha didn't go far enough. IMO they should divorce stats from the races and instead tie them to the classes or just left up to the player to decide with a simple +2 in one in stat and a +1 in another or +1 In any three stats.

Give races fun and interesting abilities to compensate,instead.

That simple

[JonBeowulf]

You mean the bard?

TBH, I didn't even think of the bard (or enchantment wizard) when I wrote that.

I think the core of what's bothering me here is that it feels people expect the published game rules to be what they want them to be instead of just changing the rules for themselves. It's impossible to satisfy everyone, but it's fairly easy to satisfy a table of 4-8 people.

[Xervous]

Disclaimer: I honestly don't remember where I saw the below, some bits were here and some bits were over on a thread on ENworld ages ago, so it's going to be a summary, AND I FREELY ADMIT SOME OF THIS MAY BE INCORRECT, MISSING DETAIL, OR MISUNDERSTOOD, but:

Hasbro bought WotC for Pokemon and Magic, not for D&D.
Divisions in Hasbro have to make revenue targets that are, even now in D&D's second golden age, basically unattainable for the tabletop.
To add insult to injury, video games etc do not count as revenue for D&D tabletop. Neither does fiction publishing, which I understand generates more revenue than the actual hardcovers. (I think D&D Beyond *does*, as did D&D Insider)
And to make things worse, the pitch for 4th edition, ahem, had an exceedingly rosy view of the revenue potential that was communicated to Corporate, which, when this was not hit, resulted in some very, very deep disappointment at Corporate.

So, as all of that is summed up, WotC tabletop is basically allowed to exist and function something akin to the comics division at Marvel, as a source of future content for other divisions, but has to meet profit targets such that they have determined the best path to profitability is to have fewer, but more impactful releases, and keep costs down as far as they can. They also have to be sure to not rock the boat sufficiently that, at some point, Hasbro Corporate doesn't think that the easiest answer to a question is to axe the division entirely.

As I noted in a prior thread, maximum profit minimum effort. The only refutation mustered was a reference to the number of unpaid play testers for 5e.

WotC did their homework so they get a gold star. They checked off this item on their scavenger hunt. There’s buzzwords in business and fate has given them one they can cash in on. MTG D&D crossovers, subscription based services... I’ll not attribute any moral weight to their decision beyond the ache of coin that might otherwise not end up in their pockets.

[Sigreid]

I'm on the fence whether I'll get the new book or not. I like having new content, but am disappointed that everyone's basically human now.

[KorvinStarmast]

Two long, bitter and now locked threads on this subject in this forum beg to differ.

On the topic itself I actually find myself agreeing with Darth Credence here to my surprise. I don't like the Tasha's... rules at all, and it has left me very pessimistic for the direction of the game but at the same time if we have to have such customisation why not go the route of Mutants & Masterminds or GURPS and make species simply a skin?

As I noted in a prior thread, maximum profit minimum effort. The only refutation mustered was a reference to the number of unpaid play testers for 5e.

If you saw that as "refutation" you are mis characterizing our dialogue somewhat. Max/Min struck me as too broad of a brush to describe the dev effort, and because you have to pay people to do stuff, there is a time/resource cost to integrating and administering a play test that big.

With that nitpick out of the way, I think that you are right that there was a keen eye on cost reduction which manifested itself in "how much can we cut once we publish?" Not sure how clear the source info was in late 2014, but I understand that about 3/4ths of the team that put D&D 5e together were gone within a month of the DMG coming out ... but that's not something I have clear information on.

[EggKookoo]

I think Tasha didn't go far enough. IMO they should divorce stats from the races and instead tie them to the classes or just left up to the player to decide with a simple +2 in one in stat and a +1 in another or +1 In any three stats.

Give races fun and interesting abilities to compensate,instead.

That simple

I don't have a problem with orcs being tough and strong while elves are lithe and nimble. I don't really have a problem with that being represented by starting bonuses to various attributes, but I agree there could be more interesting ways to represent it mechanically.

I've always had two main headscratchers with starting features.

One, some are clearly biological while others are arguably cultural. This could be clarified. Is stonecunning a biological feature, somehow inherent to dwarven neurology? Or is it a learned thing? D&D would do well to split out dwarf-the-culture and dwarf-the-creature, and assign features accordingly.

Two, why don't classes provide some basic ability score bonuses? Wouldn't a fighter get a +1 to strength simply based on the experience and training needed to even be 1st level? Ability score increases for starting PCs should be at least split between race and class, with a leaning toward class.

I find the approach presented in Tasha's to be weak, and to not really address the problem. But I suspect that's because it wasn't really meant to address a problem within the game itself.

[Sigreid]

I don't have a problem with orcs being tough and strong while elves are lithe and nimble. I don't really have a problem with that being represented by starting bonuses to various attributes, but I agree there could be more interesting ways to represent it mechanically.

I've always had two main headscratchers with starting features.

One, some are clearly biological while others are arguably cultural. This could be clarified. Is stonecunning a biological feature, somehow inherent to dwarven neurology? Or is it a learned thing? D&D would do well to split out dwarf-the-culture and dwarf-the-creature, and assign features accordingly.

Two, why don't classes provide some basic ability score bonuses? Wouldn't a fighter get a +1 to strength simply based on the experience and training needed to even be 1st level? Ability score increases for starting PCs should be at least split between race and class, with a leaning toward class.

I find the approach presented in Tasha's to be weak, and to not really address the problem. But I suspect that's because it wasn't really meant to address a problem within the game itself.

Arguably all of the racial abilities, including things that seem like skills, could and in my opinion are derived from that race's creator god. Elves are proficient with bows because they are to some extent a manifestation of the power of their deity that identifies with bows. Dwarves stonecunning ability is something they feel because of the affinity they feel for the stone from which the first dwarves were cut and still runs through not their blood, but their souls.

[EggKookoo]

Arguably all of the racial abilities, including things that seem like skills, could and in my opinion are derived from that race's creator god. Elves are proficient with bows because they are to some extent a manifestation of the power of their deity that identifies with bows. Dwarves stonecunning ability is something they feel because of the affinity they feel for the stone from which the first dwarves were cut and still runs through not their blood, but their souls.

Perfectly legit explanation IMO (which I would classify as biological for the purposes of my point).

I suppose that's the real answer. Stonecunning (et al) is inherent to all dwarves if the DM says so. Or it's a learned cultural thing if the DM says so.

[OldTrees1]

I'm on the fence whether I'll get the new book or not. I like having new content, but am disappointed that everyone's basically human now.

You already know this but, it is possible to just ignore that variant rule. That might help your decision based upon the rest of the content.

[Sigreid]

You already know this but, it is possible to just ignore that variant rule. That might help your decision based upon the rest of the content.

It's more than that though. Our $$ are the only meaningful communication to the company on the direction they are taking the game.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Another brain fart here. Going by the theme of races as cultures, what would the game be like if your race/place of origin determined your possible starting equipment? Simple weapons, all or most tools and padded, hide and ring mail armor (or maybe even just leather, chain shirt and chain mail) are available everywhere, but beyond that point there's some variation, like dwarves are maybe the only groups that can start with splint armor (if your class usually allows chain mail), and if you want to start with a greataxe you want to be an orc or a minotaur or something.

1 Where would you rate that on the enjoyment to frustration scale?
2 Would that allow more freedom in class picks for near optimal builds, or less?
and 3 Would that actually be better or way worse from a real world perspective because now orcs are the dumb cannon fodder brutes who get great weapons but bad armor?

[Sigreid]

Another brain fart here. Going by the theme of races as cultures, what would the game be like if your race/place of origin determined your possible starting equipment? Simple weapons, all or most tools and padded, hide and ring mail armor (or maybe even just leather, chain shirt and chain mail) are available everywhere, but beyond that point there's some variation, like dwarves are maybe the only groups that can start with splint armor (if your class usually allows chain mail), and if you want to start with a greataxe you want to be an orc or a minotaur or something.

1 Where would you rate that on the enjoyment to frustration scale?
2 Would that allow more freedom in class picks for near optimal builds, or less?
and 3 Would that actually be better or way worse from a real world perspective because now orcs are the dumb cannon fodder brutes who get great weapons but bad armor?

I think it would be easier tied to background, but that would also lead to clear choices of background + Class.

[OldTrees1]

what would the game be like if your race/place of origin determined your possible starting equipment?

3.

Background starting equipment handles something like this and it only works because you can do lots of reselling to customize your starting kit (you will have less wealth but that is fine). If you go down this route, ensure players can ignore it.

[Azuresun]

Agreed. I already kind of dislike many of the vanilla races for just being minor variations on humans. When I GM, I prefer to replace them with a smaller set of more distinct homebrew races. I.e. doing the exact opposite of Tasha's Cauldron. Paradoxically, I think that also eases the racial tension - racial traits wouldn't seem so reminiscent of real-life racism if D&D's races weren't so close to human.

If you just sub in the word "species" for "race", the problem virtually goes away anyway. I've never seen anyone complaining that in a Star Wars RPG, Wookies are innately stronger than humans and Ewoks are weaker.

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

The push seems to be to treat D&D "races" more like ethnicities (cosmetic variations on the same species) rather than different species entirely, and if you do that, then the only way to avoid bad real-life comparisons is to eliminate all differences more notable than pointy ears.

[EggKookoo]

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

Ugh, don't get me started on half-races. One of the first homebrew things I tell my players is that half-orcs and half-elves are not cross-breeds but standalone races of their own.

I love make-believe and fantasy as much as the next person, but I have limits.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Tasha's race rules seem like a bad move to me. At least since 3.0 it has been pretty clear that most races have inherent traits and cultural traits making it easy to make a new subspecies or a unique orphan X raised by Ys. The 3.0 DMG even explained this element of design in case it wasn't clear. The benefits offered by Tasha's have clearly been on the table for twenty years, longer if you count the point buy options of Skills & Powers.

For most tables Tasha's is bringing no new positive racial options. What it is potentially doing is giving some players a sense of entitlement to something that was once negotiated between players and DMs. Even for DMs that usually rubber stamp all such requests this erodes the idea that there are norms of what Elves and Dwarves are like. This may be okay if you want to run kitchen sink fantasy, but off the top of my head 4 of the top 6-7 settings are vaguely Tolkienesque and are shaped by the racial norms in the PHB as are are large portion of homebrew settings.

In the Untolkienesque settings Race tends to be even more important. Dark Sun with it's Mul, Thri-Kreen, and cannibal halflings. Planescape with various planar races ditto for Spelljammer with the addition of it's distinctive races. Ravenloft should probably be redone at some point as its own setting that is human only with cultures that have relatively minor mechanical effects with the default PCs being natives rather than a party that wandered in from a Tolkienesque setting.

The Tasha's racial rules are taking away flavor and moving authority from the DM to a book.

[Amechra]

Frankly, there shouldn't be a default setting, but that would require re-writing huge swathes of the PHB.

I actually kinda disagree with this. Part of the issue, in my mind, is that 5e is trying to have its cake and eat it too - it lets you play in any campaign setting... as long as that campaign setting adheres to the implicit setting defined by D&D's rules. It's kinda like how Super Mario Maker lets you make anything you want, as long as it's Mario. I feel like this has gotten worse with every edition, as the tropes that define the D&D experience have calcified.

As a result of this "we have a setting except we don't", each race gets, what, 2-3 pages of fluff + mechanics? The writers get 2-3 pages to both tell you what a Dwarf is and tell you how to play one, along with a picture that lets you go "ah yes, that's what a Dwarf looks like" (I miss 3.5's race line-up by sex, honestly, because it was a great way to see the differences in height and build.). As a result, of course they're all stereotypes. You don't have space for anything else! And don't get me started on subraces - the basic idea is good, but the implementation (especially considering their limited space) is pretty poor.

If you're going to bother trading on D&D's long history and brand, you should double down on those races. Root the core of the game in Forgotten Realms (or Eberron, or Dragonlance, or whatever), and give us in-depth descriptions of cultures. I want roleplay tidbits that I can bust out during a game that help me feel like I'm roleplaying a Dwarf or an Elf, beyond stuff like "well, Tabaxi are experience junkies". Give me a reason to pick Hill Dwarf over Mountain Dwarf, other than "well, this one gives me a bonus to Wisdom, and I'm thinking of playing a Cleric..."

And it's not like it would actually change anything vis-a-vis playing in other D&D settings. Most of them have cosmetic changes at best, and the ones that don't probably aren't going to get a satisfying 5e release any time soon (sorry Dark Sun fans, but it had to be said).

Sure, you could go with the purely mechanical "pick a stat template" approach, but that feels like a "forgetting the face of your father" thing. D&D isn't a generic fantasy game, so they should stop pretending that it is.

Furthermore, I'm of the strong opinion that mixing point-buy and class/level is always a mistake--you get the benefits of neither and the drawbacks of both. Go all the way or not at all.

You'd think BESM d20 would've shown people that this is a bad idea... but we're doomed to repeat the sins of the past.

[diplomancer]

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes. Oh, you want to build a Dexadin, too bad, here's +2 Str to you.

Making races purely cosmetic (or almost so), and the PHB races just "human templates", like OP suggested, though I wouldn't like it, would have been a better solution in my opinion. It certainly would go further in the direction of "getting rid of problematic elements in race depictions in D&D"

[stoutstien]

If you just sub in the word "species" for "race", the problem virtually goes away anyway. I've never seen anyone complaining that in a Star Wars RPG, Wookies are innately stronger than humans and Ewoks are weaker.

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

The push seems to be to treat D&D "races" more like ethnicities (cosmetic variations on the same species) rather than different species entirely, and if you do that, then the only way to avoid bad real-life comparisons is to eliminate all differences more notable than pointy ears.

IMO a better solution is to go the opposite way. If removing certain stat bonuses from one race makes them seem too human then they were probably already too human to begin with. Just about every race in d&d have human goals, human flaws, human needs, human societies, and physically are just humans with a twist.

If race was actually unique then most of the issues would be solved.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you just sub in the word "species" for "race", the problem virtually goes away anyway. I've never seen anyone complaining that in a Star Wars RPG, Wookies are innately stronger than humans and Ewoks are weaker.

Bingo.

(This is usually where someone brings up that humans and elves can have kids--humans can also have kids with genies, demons and dragons, so biology went out the window some time back.)

Not biology, but "some magical thing that is due to this being a fantasy world" is a far better explanation . (13th Age does this with humans having draconic ancestry, and with half elves as I recall. They might want to crib that bit from 13th Age).

The push seems to be to treat D&D "races" more like ethnicitiesrather than different species entirely,(cosmetic variations on the same species)

And that's a problem to the point that some guy named Burlew wrote a web comic with that as a strong undercurrent vis a vis goblins.

Ugh, don't get me started on half-races. One of the first homebrew things I tell my players is that half-orcs and half-elves are not cross-breeds but standalone races of their own.

Good idea, or even just remove them from your setting. Try this on for size: there aren't any! (I don't have Tieflings in my world, for example) (Granted, AL can't do this, I guess), but they did ban aaracokra and yuan-ti ....

I love make-believe and fantasy as much as the next person, but I have limits.

Aye.

The 3.0 DMG even explained this element of design in case it wasn't clear. The benefits offered by Tasha's have clearly been on the table for twenty years, longer if you count the point buy options of Skills & Powers.

What it is potentially doing is giving some players a sense of entitlement to something that was once negotiated between players and DMs.

Which is IMO a move in the wrong direction. (But again, with AL, maybe this is seen as good player empowerment? )

In the Untolkienesque settings Race tends to be even more important. Dark Sun with it's Mul, Thri-Kreen, and cannibal halflings. Planescape with various planar races ditto for Spelljammer with the addition of it's distinctive races.

Good points.

The Tasha's racial rules are taking away flavor and moving authority from the DM to a book.

Yeah, unless it is clearly spelled out as Optional Rule/Variant ... like Variant Encumbrance is a Variant.

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes.

13th Age did it and I like it. +2 form background/race/ancestry, and +2 based on class. (Perhaps make it an either or depending on class?)

[EggKookoo]

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes. Oh, you want to build a Dexadin, too bad, here's +2 Str to you.

The thing there then is to just build in some reasonable flexibility. Fighters and paladins and maybe rangers get a choice of + to Str or Dex, but not Int.

The whole class/subclass structure would need to be looked at. For example, fighters wouldn't necessarily give you +2 Str (or Dex if that's the way you go). Base fighter would give you +1 to Str/Dex, and probably +1 to Con. Then if you take Champion at 3rd, you get another +1 to Str/Dex. If you take EK, you get +1 to Int. Not sure what BM would give you, probably Str/Dex again. Maybe Champion requires you to put the +1 on the Str or Dex you chose at 1st level, but BM lets you choose which of the two it goes on, to imply flexibility. I dunno.

Having ASI(nc) tied to class instead of race sidesteps the entire problem. No one cares if fighters are stereotyped as dumb while wizards are stereotyped as smart.

[togapika]

For what it's worth, I wouldn't really care if a player wanted to futz about further with races.

Can I be a small Tabaxi since small cats are inherently more adorable than larger cats?

[Amechra]

I'm strongly opposed to tying ASI to classes. Oh, you want to build a Dexadin, too bad, here's +2 Str to you.

I mean, if I was handling this kind of system, I'd make it a bit more flexible. I'd probably have Paladins end up as +1 Cha, +1 to any physical ability score, and +1 to any ability score. Then again, I'd also make it so that all of the martial classes could work off of either Strength or Dexterity more-or-less interchangably, so...