Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[qube]

> If TCE were optional, then all these new races would have listed fixed ASIs,

And that's why variant humans and half-elves have entirely fixed ASIs.

Euhm, what's the relevant of humans & half-elves? I mean - You do know Wizard of the coast admitted this isn't the same idea behind humans* - but a new direction they started going in ?

(* who have always filled the nice of jack of all trades, master of none)

[Second Wind]

Euhm, what's the relevant of humans & half-elves? I mean - You do know Wizard of the coast admitted this isn't the same idea behind humans* - but a new direction they started going in ?

(* who have always filled the nice of jack of all trades, master of none)

Humans in 3.5 and (variant) humans in 5e aren't jacks of all trades. They're masters of whichever thing the player wants them to master. They specialize more intensely than pretty much any other playable race, which is why they're top picks for every class.

[Witty Username]

"This car is easy to mod, but works just fine without having to be modified" is a very different package than "This car doesn't work until you build it, yourself, and pick all the mods you want."

True, but which is which will depend on your perspective.
For example if you find fixed racial ASIs as causing problems and need to rip them out, then floating ASIs is the "works just fine" and fixed is "the car doesn't work"

Either way, in my mind this is a smaller fish then say incorporating magic items into the game without causing issues for example.

As for +2/+1, how many races pre-tasha's had a stat line other than +2/+1? +2/+1 is a fair assumtion without being informed by Tasha's or more specifically Ravenloft.

[GooeyChewie]

But this is a bit of a push back on this claim. If the fixed ASIs have obvious calls then the DM just says them, if they don't have obvious calls then flexible ASIs make as much sense anyway. It is kinda like mental scores with elves -

If the fixed ASIs are obvious, then WotC has no excuse for not including them. And if they aren't obvious, then that's when the fixed ASIs are most needed for tables which prefer them over floating ASIs.

To try to put in clearer fashion, not having Fixed ASIs is a solvable problem, having Fixed ASIs that make no sense is arguably a harder problem to solve or the same problem reworded.

A solvable problem is still a problem. My argument is that the DM should not need to solve the problem.

I agree that WotC providing racial ASIs which make no sense would also be a problem. I don't think there's an argument for it being a harder problem to solve, though. The solution for any table which wants to use alternate ASIs would be the same, let the DM override them. And a race with weird ASIs would only impact that one race, rather than all future races.

If WotC provided both the rules allowing tables to use floating ASIs at their discretion and reasonable suggested ASIs, there would be no problem. Your table wants to use floating ASIs? Cool, go for it. Your table wants to use fixed ASIs? Cool, go for it. Tasha's promised this design; WotC did not follow through with it.

It is also a complaint about 2 races at this point and their are something like 10 books worth of race options that need no adjustment at all. And that is assuming you don't do something like used Floating for the new races and fixed for the old ones.
It does help that the 2 races at issue are Fairy and Rabbitfolk so
Fairy +2 dex/ +1 cha
Rabbit +2dex/ +1 wis

Eight races. Or five, and three lineages, if you prefer to delineate them. Plus another seven races in the Traveler's UA, if your table uses it. And WotC shows no sign of adding suggested ASIs for any race going forward.

If I were setting the fixed ASIs for the already-printed races, I would go with:

Damphir - +2 Con, +1 Dex. They have a Con-based attack, and the fluff makes it seem they keep the alacrity of full vampires but not the intellect or charisma.
Hexblood - +2 Cha, +1 Con. The fluff talks a lot about hags, and hags use Charisma as their natural spellcasting ability score. Hags tend to also have good Strength and Constitution, with the latter being more generally useful.
Reborn - The fluff lists out several reborn origin options. I would list different fixed ASIs for each. They would actually end up with a variety of options.
Metallic Dragonborn - +2 Str, +1 Cha. I think WotC had these guys in mind when they made PHB dragonborn.
Chromatic Dragonborn - +2 Cha, +1 Str. Not terribly different from their metallic cousins, but just different enough to suggest that Tiamat is more like a Warlock Patron to them than a Paladin deity.
Gem Dragonborn - +2 Int, +1 Wis. The fluff talks about how theirs is the realm of the mind.
Fairy - +2 Wis, +1 Dex. I admit I'm not super familiar with the Feywild, but I usually associate it with wood elves (who get a Wisdom ASI), and fairies get Druidcraft (and druids use Wisdom). Dex because they can fly (though I admit that's a bit of a weak justification).
Rabbitfolk - +2 Dex, +1 Cha. Dexterity because rabbits are fast, charisma because they're super-cute!

And that's why variant humans and half-elves have entirely fixed ASIs.

There's a big difference between having a couple of races which are explicit exceptions to a rule and instituting a blanket policy change that turns what was the exception into the official way to play for all new races going forward.

[Pex]

And that's why variant humans and half-elves have entirely fixed ASIs.

Snark fail. Humans having floating ASI was their feature. Rather, Variant Human. Regular Human has +1 to everything and absolutely nothing else. Variant Human having floating ASI was their unique thing. They only get +1s. Every other race gets a +2 somewhere. Because of Tasha Humans have lost their uniqueness. Now regular Human is absolute garbage, and Variant Human is barely relevant because the feat still matters.

[Witty Username]

@GooeyChewie
In all honesty I am losing it (in a good way) that our opinion on the fairies and rabbits are flipped. I was personally thinking Fairy as Cha because of the social, deceptive, innately magical type, which is at least in my understanding of what charisma encompasses. And for rabbit, well I was thinking dex because agile and wis because it is easy to justify for about any wild animal since perception and survival both key off of it.

I suppose that is also a lens on how I see this kind of thing, a small slice of the infinite options to stat a rabbit (Note I have not actually seen anything related to the new races other than their names and pictures on D&D beyond, I am making stuff up):
1. Fixed ASIs, no subraces or Rabbit with say +dex+wis or +dex +cha but not both. I actually get frustrated with this one generally, mostly because it doesn't have much to express on the subject. Which ever one of use got the right call the other gets left out, and the race feels more like an afterthought than having been given full attention. That being said it has some plug in and play advantages; no work, get block, done.
2. Fixed ASIs, multiple subraces or say Domesticated Rabbit (+dex, +cha), Wild Rabbit(+dex, +wis) and Arctic Rabbit (+dex, +con). I like this take since we have multiple choices and cover a lot of bases and we have lore abound for the race in question. There are some down sides like lore and stats being tied together in ways you may not care for (Like say the Arctic Rabbit, maybe you like the idea of a harsh environment rabbit but are put off by being required to be from a cold climate area).
3. Floating ASIs, no subraces. One Rabbit stat block for other racial traits. I find this accomplishes a lot of the goals of the different subraces, at least on the player side of things, a rough and tumble wild rabbit, a sneaky city stray rabbit, and a cute, cuddled noble rabbit that can maybe do tricks can all be made along with others I am too stupid to think of. And saves some page space if that is a concern. That being said this would likely have to come with well written lore or flavor to evoke ideas.


On to other smaller points
I will admit I discounted the new dragonborn, because the dragonborn have fixed ASIs from the PHB to borrow. I will give that was probably a hasty assumption.

The take on Reborn is interesting, since the suggestion is similar to the Tome of Foes treatment of Tieflings and fits into my thoughts up top. In line with what I am getting at up top, I liked the customizable aspect of the Tieflings in Tome of Foes (and less so in SCAG) but floating ASIs can get at that without needing a bunch of stat blocks. I personally find the floating ASIs a more effective solution for that line of thinking. So Reborn having multiple stat lines would be interesting but Floating ASIs is to me, that but more.

I will agree that not having fixed ASIs is a problem for people that want them. I suppose I just find it easier to impose restrictions on an open system than try to expand a closed one. My point is more about perspective, some people seems to be of the mind that Floating ASIs upend the entire game and render it completely unplayable. Where I am of the mind on is I feel for you but I don't see it as the death blast has hit.

I do realize this feels kinda like late 3.0 books as 3.5 hit, and some frustrations a feeling of one foot on the canoe and one on the dock.
Er, say we want to have rules for both the people that want the floating ASIs and Fixed ASIs.
Option 1. Assume everyone has Tasha's and proceed with Fixed ASIs.
Option 2. Copy the relevant Tasha's rules into every new book along with Fixed ASIs.
Option 3. Floating ASIs for races, and leave Fixed ASIs off.

I think we are in agreement that 2 is the best solution with our current setup, Since option 1 a 3 only serve one side of the discussion (or rather the groups those side are representative of since I take it everyone here that is in favor of the Tasha's rules probably owns Tasha's). But WOTC has gone with option 3, possibly because they like the idea of people getting them in the new books but not reduce the value of Tasha's by the overlapping rules but ultimately I have no idea.

Either way it seems like a proper solution won't be a thing unless a revised phb comes out. That way we could get a book that all players can be expected to have access to with the relevant rules possibilities come out.

[OldTrees1]

@GooeyChewie

I suppose that is also a lens on how I see this kind of thing, a small slice of the infinite options to stat a rabbit (Note I have not actually seen anything related to the new races other than their names and pictures on D&D beyond, I am making stuff up):

The trivial solution that is repeatedly mentioned:
4. Floating ASIs, no subraces, but with example Fixed ASIs for the optional variant (template the example as a sidebar or a parenthetical note).
Trivial to run as floating ASIs (it's the default)
Trivial to run with example fixed ASIs (as content for the variant)
Easy for the GM to modify the fixed ASIs (homebrew friendly)

Honestly a score of Trivial out of the box/Trivial out of the box/Easy to mod is hard to beat.

Harengon Traits
Ability Score Increase. Increase one ability score by 2, and increase a different one by 1, or increase three different scores by 1.
(For example +2 Dex +1 Wis) <-- This line is a small addition but does a lot

Maybe this is what you meant by option 2. They already copy the floating ASI rules into each species features. Just add an example for the fixed variant without removing the floating default.

[Amnestic]

Snark fail. Humans having floating ASI was their feature. Rather, Variant Human. Regular Human has +1 to everything and absolutely nothing else. Variant Human having floating ASI was their unique thing. They only get +1s. Every other race gets a +2 somewhere. Because of Tasha Humans have lost their uniqueness. Now regular Human is absolute garbage, and Variant Human is barely relevant because the feat still matters.

"Barely relevant" as if they're not still a top tier race pick is one way of framing it.

Which I think is mildly interesting, for all the gripes about Tasha messing up balance: V.Human hasn't been 'dethroned' by Harengon or Fairy, nor by any other race with now-floating ASIs. It might be less dominant now, but it's not dropped down in attractiveness and a great many builds still recommend it as a top pick because a 'free' feat is just that good (especially when games rarely break out of tier 2, which means most characters get at most 2 ASIs).

[Anymage]

Which I think is mildly interesting, for all the gripes about Tasha messing up balance: V.Human hasn't been 'dethroned' by Harengon or Fairy, nor by any other race with now-floating ASIs. It might be less dominant now, but it's not dropped down in attractiveness and a great many builds still recommend it as a top pick because a 'free' feat is just that good (especially when games rarely break out of tier 2, which means most characters get at most 2 ASIs).

Vhuman has been dethroned by Custom Lineage, which is just a power creeped version of the same. And the races best suited to challenging vhuman for certain builds are pre-Tasha's races where more or less congenial ASIs were part of the balance design, only to be unleashed when Tasha's opened everything up. Post-Tasha's races balanced around the idea of floating ASIs makes me think they'll fix things eventually, but doesn't make those pages not feel like a very hurried rough draft.

[Valmark]

Vhuman has been dethroned by Custom Lineage, which is just a power creeped version of the same. And the races best suited to challenging vhuman for certain builds are pre-Tasha's races where more or less congenial ASIs were part of the balance design, only to be unleashed when Tasha's opened everything up. Post-Tasha's races balanced around the idea of floating ASIs makes me think they'll fix things eventually, but doesn't make those pages not feel like a very hurried rough draft.

Not quite. If you want human racial feats -or really anybody's racial feats- you can't use CL.

And unless you are taking a feat with a +1 to stats you also aren't getting two 16s with point buy with Custom Lineage, which may or may not matter.

[Delicious Taffy]

(especially when games rarely break out of tier 2, which means most characters get at most 2 ASIs)

To preface, I'm not remotely attempting to dispute the above.

Where do y'all get your info on "most-played" and "meta" stuff in D&D? I'd imagine the grand majority of tables don't like, log their classes and rules and stuff on some sort of repository to be used as reference. Or is that, like I suspect most of the "X rule will lead to Y overhaul" stuff to be, a big huge speculation?

[P. G. Macer]

To preface, I'm not remotely attempting to dispute the above.

Where do y'all get your info on "most-played" and "meta" stuff in D&D? I'd imagine the grand majority of tables don't like, log their classes and rules and stuff on some sort of repository to be used as reference. Or is that, like I suspect most of the "X rule will lead to Y overhaul" stuff to be, a big huge speculation?

Wizards of the Coast routinely surveys players about their D&D habits, and occasionally report their findings to the public. Additionally, D&D Beyond also sometimes releases its player data.

[KorvinStarmast]

@PhoenixPhyre

Spoiler: About those sea elves

Show

weil'goroesi = sea elves

Yeah, I am, in my strategic plan, going to have to send out some contacts, or go myself, to see both the tritons and weil'goroesi as I try and build an alliance in the Southern Ocean to pursue my various long term aims.
Which has be struggling with ...

Spoiler: campaign thing that's been much on my mind

Show

what happens and level 20
Lore Bard 20? Thematic, sure.
MC into Warlock / Fathomless, with that tentacle and my relationship with Leviathan? Strong thematic urge
MC into Warlock/Genie with Marid focus. (It's only one level). Thematic, yes, but not as strong as Fathomless.
MC into Warlock GOO / Leviathan might be close enough to "GOO" in terms of being the origin of song magic, but my maritime theme is probably best suited to Fathomless - I think I need to pay homage to my patron/inspiration/song and dream source ...

PS

Spoiler: Not every idea is brilliant, but ...

Show

Draft Birth celebration customs and rites are in work over my lunch hour, will have them to you this evening, the 8 day week gets folded into them...

[Psyren]

The examples you give are high level character concepts. At that point they'll have enough class based ASIs to be as good as anybody else.

Not at all. Garona might not have had 20 Dex at level 1 if she were statted as a D&D Assassin, but she was certainly a prodigy on par with the best rogues from other races, even at the start of her career. That's genuinely all I want, is for adventurers/PCs to be able to do that regardless of their race.

Should an elf starting out as an assassin have an edge over an orc? Decades of fantasy precedent, including many games influenced by past editions of D&D, say yes.

An elf, sure. Most elves, also sure. Every elf ever over every orc ever - no. Even if 99% of the former have superior agility, I want the option to exist for PC half-orcs to originate from that tiny 1% where that doesn't hold true.

"General attributes" are "use cases/situations," too. The idea that "movement speed" is less of an important use case than "Intelligence" is belied by how mutually-relatively frequently the two come up in games.

Should Usaine Bolt be relegated to only playable as a centaur, or should flexible speed bonuses be a thing so that he can be played as a human?

You don't need a specific race for that concept though. Dash action + Mobile, possibly Monk as well. And there is no stat or attribute that governs speed in this game anyway, so concepts that revolve around it are necessarily more limited here. The same is not true for concepts like intelligence or dexterity.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that move speed is as important as ability scores as well. Move speed usually comes up in just one pillar (combat) while ability scores matter to all three. Even when it matters to the exploration pillar, you can typically augment or bypass it in other ways like riding a horse.

Why are you so willing to deny tables which prefer fixed ASIs their preference? Your argument that those tables can just float their ASIs back to Str/Con only works for half-orc because they have printed ASIs. Anything printed post-Tasha's, the DM has to generate content that WotC chose not to provide.

I'm not denying anything I do hold the opinion that continuing to print official fixed ASIs after this policy change is a waste of design time that WotC could better spend elsewhere, but I think that of other things they do too, like designing official statblocks for deities. I certainly wouldn't boycott over it.

I used the phrase "notably smart" to refer to a race as a whole, in that on average adventurers of that race have a higher Intelligence then adventurers of other races. Any given adventurer can be notably smart, regardless of whether they have an ASI in Intelligence or not.

That would make them just "notably smart for their race" when what I want is the possibility of "notably smart for any race."

[QUOTE=GooeyChewie;25289926]That fact aside, my point is that you are acting as though the lack of an ASI says more about a race than does the existence of an ASI. A race not having an Int ASI is not a condemnation of that race's intelligence, regardless of how you phrase it.

You're still telling those adventurers they have to be less-than because of their race. "Condemnation" might be a loaded term for that, but I'd still say it's an unnecessary limitation.

You argue that these pros and cons exist when it suits you, when you want to claim that race is still a meaningful choice with floating ASIs. Yet when people point out that racial features imply just as much about the capabilities of particular races as do ASIs, you act like ASIs were the only thing which ever informed your race/class choice. For what it's worth, I agree that racial features still provide pros and cons. But if those pros and cons are enough to actually make a difference in what race you choose for which class, then changing fixed ASIs to floating ASIs only served to change which races go with which classes.

I'm not saying there won't ever be a "best" choice for race/class combination with fixed ASIs removed. But I think the difference will be tiny enough that any feeling of disadvantage is minimized considerably. Like a rock gnome artificer without having the absolute best Int in core, will still have the advantage of being able to produce a cool device to use with his Magical Tinkering feature, or a High Elf wizard will still get a bonus cantrip for their wizard - those are useful features. But maybe the Half-Orc Wizard's Relentless Endurance or the Halfling Artificer's Lucky lets that character survive something that would have killed the other two - the question of which one is more "optimal" is now at least interesting.

[MadBear]

I still fail to see any actual downside to Tasha's. The racial ability scores already make close to 0 sense. A level 1 halfling can already have the equivalent strength of a gorilla. That's stronger then any human alive could ever match. So we're already in high fantasy land from the start.

So once it's conceded that ability scores already don't track at all close to reality, having these racial modifiers be fixed just makes interesting race combinations feel worse.

The way I see it, letting players choose where they place , these modifiers allows them to make a character whose ability scores track better with the class. The DM can have NPC's fit norms if they want (Orcs are stronger, Elves more dexterous, etc.), but the players don't have to fit in that box.

I can see other RPG systems using other methods to make it seem more realistic, but doing so in D&D would have to have us slaughter more then a few sacred cows, so that's just not gonna happen.

[Segev]

Not at all. Garona might not have had 20 Dex at level 1 if she were statted as a D&D Assassin, but she was certainly a prodigy on par with the best rogues from other races, even at the start of her career. That's genuinely all I want, is for adventurers/PCs to be able to do that regardless of their race.

In all stats, or just "the important ones"?

You don't need a specific race for that concept though. Dash action + Mobile, possibly Monk as well. And there is no stat or attribute that governs speed in this game anyway, so concepts that revolve around it are necessarily more limited here. The same is not true for concepts like intelligence or dexterity.

Race gives you your base speed. Yet I do not see you demanding that a dwarf be allowed to have the same starting speed as a centaur.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that move speed is as important as ability scores as well. Move speed usually comes up in just one pillar (combat) while ability scores matter to all three. Even when it matters to the exploration pillar, you can typically augment or bypass it in other ways like riding a horse.

And a dragonborn wizard can bypass a lower intelligence with a headband of intellect until he gets it to 20.

A dwarf on a warhorse is not living the fantasy of "the fastest dwarf prodigy runner" at all, while the dragonborn with the headband is living it both via having a 15 to start with, being amongst the smartest dragonborn alive, and by being smarter still from his headband.

Your arguments are just-so stories. "It isn't the same because I say so."

There is no way for a dwarf to ever catch up to a human (investing as much as possible into speed), let alone a centaur, in speed, while every race can get to 20 in any ability score.

[Sorinth]

If the fixed ASIs are obvious, then WotC has no excuse for not including them. And if they aren't obvious, then that's when the fixed ASIs are most needed for tables which prefer them over floating ASIs.

I would say the opposite, if they are obvious then there's no problem with floating asis because the DM can easily assign them to the "right" score based on whether they want this particular NPC to be typical or not. For ASIs that aren't obvious there is no "right" ability so having them be floating makes the most sense.

Also if it's really problematic how did you ever handle making a Half-Elf NPC?

[KorvinStarmast]

but doing so in D&D would have to have us slaughter more then a few sacred cows, so that's just not gonna happen.

But killing off some more halflings can't hurt.

Also if it's really problematic how did you ever handle making a Half-Elf NPC?

Given that D&D is often called "an elf game" I suspect the issue never arose.

[Xervous]

But killing off some more halflings can't hurt.
Given that D&D is often called "an elf game" I suspect the issue never arose.

Well if we called it a dwarf game we’d be selling it short!

+1 on removing flavorless halflings. Though they may be crunchy, ketchup can’t even save them.

[Psyren]

I still fail to see any actual downside to Tasha's. The racial ability scores already make close to 0 sense. A level 1 halfling can already have the equivalent strength of a gorilla. That's stronger then any human alive could ever match. So we're already in high fantasy land from the start.

So once it's conceded that ability scores already don't track at all close to reality, having these racial modifiers be fixed just makes interesting race combinations feel worse.

The way I see it, letting players choose where they place , these modifiers allows them to make a character whose ability scores track better with the class. The DM can have NPC's fit norms if they want (Orcs are stronger, Elves more dexterous, etc.), but the players don't have to fit in that box.

Precisely, agreed on all counts.

In all stats, or just "the important ones"?
...
Your arguments are just-so stories. "It isn't the same because I say so."

I did provide an argument for why they're special actually; ability scores matter to all three of the game's primary resolutions (rolls). The PHB even says this explicitly:

The three main rolls of the game - the ability check, the saving throw, and the attack roll - rely on the six ability scores.
...
Each of a creature's abilities has a score, a number that defines the magnitude of that ability. An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability. A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches. Adventurers can have scores as high as 20, and monsters and divine beings can have scores as high as 30.
...
Every task that a character or monster might attempt in the game is covered by one of the six abilities."

Because of this, they also apply to all three pillars of play (combat, social interaction, and exploration).

A character's speed meanwhile applies to no rolls, main or otherwise, and at best matters to one pillar (combat) - and in many cases not even then (e.g. ranged build, mounted build etc.) So no, they are not the same.

[Segev]

I did provide an argument for why they're special actually; ability scores matter to all three of the game's primary resolutions (rolls). The PHB even says this explicitly:



Because of this, they also apply to all three pillars of play (combat, social interaction, and exploration).

A character's speed meanwhile applies to no rolls, main or otherwise, and at best matters to one pillar (combat) - and in many cases not even then (e.g. ranged build, mounted build etc.) So no, they are not the same.

Ah, so anything that isn't rolled never matters. I suppose jumping distance and carrying capacity don't matter, making Strength an even less useful score, then?

And obviously, spellcasting ability must not matter when it doesn't call for an attack roll or a saving throw, such as with prestidigitation or minor illusion.

Movement speed matters in all three pillars, as well, though yes, it matters most in combat. So do the rolls you cite, though, because combat is the time when those tensions are highest and things come up most often.

You need speed in social encounters for competitions, for getting across the room to interact in time, for even getting to the party when the nefarious Count Nottagudgi arranged for your carriage to be waylaid. You need speed in exploration to be able to cover more ground and to be able to get back with reports.

You're dismissal of it can be equally used to dismiss the checks you and the game call "central." I understand why you want to just dismiss it, since if you can't, your argument that having some characters able to start with 2 higher in a given stat is horrific means that it's impossible for a dwarf to ever make up for the 5 ft. speed deficit he suffers compared to a half-orc and thus the speeds being different across the races is ALSO a problem, even worse because it doesn't even out at high level.

And though you quote it, I don't see a reply to my question about "some stats, or all of them" being what matters to a prodigy. Did I miss it? If so, I apologize. Either way, please (re)post a response to it.

[KorvinStarmast]

+1 on removing flavorless halflings. Though they may be crunchy, ketchup can’t even save them.

Rumor has it that Smeagol found them to be tasty, Precious!

[Psyren]

Ah, so anything that isn't rolled never matters. I suppose jumping distance and carrying capacity don't matter, making Strength an even less useful score, then?

Ut-ut-ut, please leave the goalposts where they were. You were asking why I consider ability scores to be more special/important than other aspects of a character (beyond just "because I say so"), and I answered by saying they directly inform what the game itself considers its core conflict resolution mechanic (the "three main rolls" per the PHB). That is not the same as saying other aspects of your character "don't matter."

And though you quote it, I don't see a reply to my question about "some stats, or all of them" being what matters to a prodigy. Did I miss it? If so, I apologize. Either way, please (re)post a response to it.

Per the Player's Handbook, the three main rolls form the core of the rules of the game (PHB 7). Ability scores form the basis of these rolls (same page.) Therefore, they matter more than other attributes of your character, and therefore, treating racials that adjust those scores differently than other racials makes sense.

[GooeyChewie]

I'm not denying anything I do hold the opinion that continuing to print official fixed ASIs after this policy change is a waste of design time that WotC could better spend elsewhere, but I think that of other things they do too, like designing official statblocks for deities. I certainly wouldn't boycott over it.

You claim that you aren't denying anybody anything, and then in the very next statement say it's a waste of WotC's time to provide the information necessary for tables which prefer to use fixed ASIs. You don't realize you're denying those tables because it doesn't affect you personally. All I'm asking is that you recognize that there are tables which would prefer using fixed ASIs, that WotC providing suggested ASIs would be beneficial for those tables, and that any such suggested ASIs could exist alongside the rules for floating ASIs.

I would say the opposite, if they are obvious then there's no problem with floating asis because the DM can easily assign them to the "right" score based on whether they want this particular NPC to be typical or not. For ASIs that aren't obvious there is no "right" ability so having them be floating makes the most sense.

"There's no problem because the DM can fix the problem." If it's up to the DM to fix the problem, then there is a problem.

"If it isn't obvious, tables which prefer not to use floating ASIs should just use floating ASIs." This type of attitude is exactly why I say Tasha's lied when it said floating ASIs were an optional rule.

Also if it's really problematic how did you ever handle making a Half-Elf NPC?

I said this in response to a similar comment from Amnestic above, but I'll repeat.

There's a big difference between having a couple of races which are explicit exceptions to a rule and instituting a blanket policy change that turns what was the exception into the official way to play for all new races going forward.

[Sorinth]

"There's no problem because the DM can fix the problem." If it's up to the DM to fix the problem, then there is a problem.

"If it isn't obvious, tables which prefer not to use floating ASIs should just use floating ASIs." This type of attitude is exactly why I say Tasha's lied when it said floating ASIs were an optional rule.


I said this in response to a similar comment from Amnestic above, but I'll repeat.

There's a big difference between having a couple of races which are explicit exceptions to a rule and instituting a blanket policy change that turns what was the exception into the official way to play for all new races going forward.

Can you define what the problem actually is, because I don't see an actual problem, if with floating ASIs I want a typical Half-Orc I'll put them into Str/Con, if I want an atypical Half-Orc I'll put them into something else. So what's the actual problem here?

Saying Half-Elf isn't a problem because it's the exception is a deflection. Either they are a problem or their not. Because sure if they are a problem due to floating ASIs then making that the standartd is making the problem worse, but if they aren't a problem then how is it a problem now if Dwarves also get it?

Because the only problem I can possibly see is someone wanting to make a stereotypical member of that race and not knowing which stats to apply the asis too. To which I'd say, if you don't know then it's not important or a problem.

[Segev]

Ut-ut-ut, please leave the goalposts where they were. You were asking why I consider ability scores to be more special/important than other aspects of a character (beyond just "because I say so"), and I answered by saying they directly inform what the game itself considers its core conflict resolution mechanic (the "three main rolls" per the PHB). That is not the same as saying other aspects of your character "don't matter."



Per the Player's Handbook, the three main rolls form the core of the rules of the game (PHB 7). Ability scores form the basis of these rolls (same page.) Therefore, they matter more than other attributes of your character, and therefore, treating racials that adjust those scores differently than other racials makes sense.

Ah, you misunderstood my question, and I didn't realize it. My apologies.

You had said that you wanted any prodigy of any race to get to start as exceptional in a stat as any prodigy of any other race. I was asking if you meant that they had to be able to have identical ability scores to every other prodigy in every ability, or it it was sufficient that they could match the other prodigies in any single specific score.

Is that clearer what I am asking?

[Pex]

Can you define what the problem actually is, because I don't see an actual problem, if with floating ASIs I want a typical Half-Orc I'll put them into Str/Con, if I want an atypical Half-Orc I'll put them into something else. So what's the actual problem here?

Saying Half-Elf isn't a problem because it's the exception is a deflection. Either they are a problem or their not. Because sure if they are a problem due to floating ASIs then making that the standartd is making the problem worse, but if they aren't a problem then how is it a problem now if Dwarves also get it?

Because the only problem I can possibly see is someone wanting to make a stereotypical member of that race and not knowing which stats to apply the asis too. To which I'd say, if you don't know then it's not important or a problem.

It's a problem because Humans lose their uniqueness, Their floating ASI was part of the Cool Thing they had. For regular Human it was the only thing they had and not even that much with +1 to everything. Regular Human is rendered obsolete. For Variant Human the only thing going for it now is the feat. The feat was a big deal before Tasha, but the +1/+1 was also significant. The bonus skill is nice, but it's trivial to get proficiency in the skills you care about for your character.

As for not knowing where to apply fixed ASI, that is an important thing and the whole point. Call me convinced by the being lied to argument, but before Tasha fixed ASIs were given. Tasha offers the variant floating ASIs. Ok, it's optional, not official. However, from now on WOTC will not give fixed ASI for future new races. That makes it a blatant lie it's optional. They game forces the DM to make an extra step he didn't have to before. As much as I'm all for players' rights, it does put pressure on the DM to use the optional rule when they don't want to. If every new race gets floating ASI a player may well demand the old races can too. Yes, the DM can say no, blah, blah, blah, but the not really optional option forces the debate to happen at all where it never existed. It's not too much to ask to have fixed ASIs for new races, then let it be a free DM choice to use the optional rule or not.

[GooeyChewie]

Can you define what the problem actually is, because I don't see an actual problem, if with floating ASIs I want a typical Half-Orc I'll put them into Str/Con, if I want an atypical Half-Orc I'll put them into something else. So what's the actual problem here?

Saying Half-Elf isn't a problem because it's the exception is a deflection. Either they are a problem or their not. Because sure if they are a problem due to floating ASIs then making that the standartd is making the problem worse, but if they aren't a problem then how is it a problem now if Dwarves also get it?

Because the only problem I can possibly see is someone wanting to make a stereotypical member of that race and not knowing which stats to apply the asis too. To which I'd say, if you don't know then it's not important or a problem.

Tasha's presented floating ASIs as an optional rule. All races printed after Tasha's do not have the rules necessary for tables to choose not to use the "optional" rule with these races. At best, calling the rules "optional" in Tasha's was a half-truth. The floating ASI rule is effectively mandatory for any table using any post-Tasha's races. Had WotC provided suggested (or typical, or archetypical, or whatever they'd decide to call them) ASIs for newer races, then the floating ASIs rule would actually be optional.

Having a couple of races with explicitly floating ASIs is not a problem. It makes those races special, the exceptions which prove the rule. Turning floating ASIs into the standard with no rules-as-written way to play without the "optional" rule is a problem.

Half-orcs aren't particularly relevant in this regard, since they do have WotC-provided fixed ASIs. There is a separate, tangentially related argument that lacking Int ASIs on half-orcs is an implication that they are somehow "less-than" other races. (I disagree; different fixed ASIs simply make different races diverse from each other, not "less-than" one another.)

[Sorinth]

Tasha's presented floating ASIs as an optional rule. All races printed after Tasha's do not have the rules necessary for tables to choose not to use the "optional" rule with these races. At best, calling the rules "optional" in Tasha's was a half-truth. The floating ASI rule is effectively mandatory for any table using any post-Tasha's races. Had WotC provided suggested (or typical, or archetypical, or whatever they'd decide to call them) ASIs for newer races, then the floating ASIs rule would actually be optional.

Having a couple of races with explicitly floating ASIs is not a problem. It makes those races special, the exceptions which prove the rule. Turning floating ASIs into the standard with no rules-as-written way to play without the "optional" rule is a problem.

Half-orcs aren't particularly relevant in this regard, since they do have WotC-provided fixed ASIs. There is a separate, tangentially related argument that lacking Int ASIs on half-orcs is an implication that they are somehow "less-than" other races. (I disagree; different fixed ASIs simply make different races diverse from each other, not "less-than" one another.)

And? You still haven't explained what the problem is. You want to make a Harengon NPC, what problem are you facing?

[Psyren]

You claim that you aren't denying anybody anything, and then in the very next statement say it's a waste of WotC's time to provide the information necessary for tables which prefer to use fixed ASIs. You don't realize you're denying those tables because it doesn't affect you personally. All I'm asking is that you recognize that there are tables which would prefer using fixed ASIs, that WotC providing suggested ASIs would be beneficial for those tables, and that any such suggested ASIs could exist alongside the rules for floating ASIs.

I recognize there are potential benefits for other tables (who wouldn't have to come up with fixed ASIs of their own). I do not think those benefits outweigh the dev time saved by simply having floating ASIs be the new norm. My thinking the benefits aren't worth it is not failing to recognize that there are any, rather it's just my opinion on the matter.

Ah, you misunderstood my question, and I didn't realize it. My apologies.

You had said that you wanted any prodigy of any race to get to start as exceptional in a stat as any prodigy of any other race. I was asking if you meant that they had to be able to have identical ability scores to every other prodigy in every ability, or it it was sufficient that they could match the other prodigies in any single specific score.

Is that clearer what I am asking?

I think a half-orc adventurer should be able to have all the same starting scores as an elf adventurer. Let me know if that covers it.

It's a problem because Humans lose their uniqueness, Their floating ASI was part of the Cool Thing they had. For regular Human it was the only thing they had and not even that much with +1 to everything. Regular Human is rendered obsolete. For Variant Human the only thing going for it now is the feat. The feat was a big deal before Tasha, but the +1/+1 was also significant. The bonus skill is nice, but it's trivial to get proficiency in the skills you care about for your character.

This is so far the only "problem" with floating ASIs that I unreservedly agree with, and it's a tougher nut to crack when feats are optional. But I'd rather just give humans something else than take away floating ASIs.