Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[qube]

The irony in the shift of mechanics, is that people who think the free floating ASI design lead to PC-equality (political correct , not player character), are actually mistaken

Shifting from ASI to non-ASI makes gaps neih unbridgable.

• If a racial difference is done by ASI, then characters can compensate.
  Sure, half orcs are stronger, but elves can just take +2 STR with their next ASI.
  it's not like elves are capped at 20, and half orcs at 22.
• If racial traits difference are done by non-ASI racial traits, compensating becomes signigicantly harder
  No matter how many levels fighter our elf gets, he'll never get powerful build
  (supposes one codifies the strength difference a race had, but giving them powerful build)

Though obviously, this reasoning only applies to the core design choice of the new races.

Tasha OTOH doesn't do this - it insteads removes racial differences ... well, kind of.

• a race that had it's grace codified by +2 DEX now is less gracefull
• a race that had it's grace codified by non-ASI racial trait, is still gracefull

By randomly (well, dependant on their codification) kicking out racial traits, races do become more equal

> > How does "resistant to charm" measure your "mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill"

> It doesn't. But it's still a brain thing.

"it's a brain thing" =/= "mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill."

Considering my first 2 words were "It doesn't" - you're repeating what I said, opposite to actually adressing what I asked

Psyren: Why? Are half-orc brains just inferior?
Qube: Inferior to high elf brains? yes.
Psyren: Wow. Sounds like this change was needed.

Qube: Regardless of how you pretty it up, it's now you who are actively advocating half-orc brains to be inferior to high elf brains.

Considering you and I agree "it's a brain thing" =/= "mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill.", mind now actually clarifying your position; as asked multiple times now?

Is it OK, or not OK, for half-orcs to have an inferior brain compared to high elves?

[Azuresun]

Is it OK, or not OK, for half-orcs to have an inferior brain compared to high elves?

Just so long as everyone has an inferior brain to the Gnomes.

[Anymage]

So the half-orc can get to 16 Int... by spending more points than the elf or gnome and thus having worse stats elsewhere.

If you want to play a firbolg wizard and be able to reach the benchmark for +3 in a stat, that's fine and I fully support it. Ideally without allowing gnomes or custom lineages or whatever to reach 18/+4 and create a new optimizer's benchmark to define the new norm that everybody will want to reach for heavily SAD classes. If a backstory speaks to you, the DM should absolutely want to help you make that viable.

If you complain about how your firbolg wizard has to waste points on str and wis to any degree, I'm going to wonder which part of "fey oriented half giant" spoke to you on any level. If it's the bonus action invisibility, I'm not going to be too upset that pre-Tasha's races had more or less congenial ASIs as part of their balance planning and ask for some non-optimal points if your plan is to shop around for racial features.

I don't mind races going forwards being built with flex ASIs to reduce DM overhead. And I don't mind DMs working to make edge cases more viable. But when someone insists that any point spent suboptimally is wasted and hampers character viability, I'm going to want stricter RAW adherence to play the optimization minigame.

[Segev]

Yes, it was shorthand. I know that technically a 15 is special too, by the standards of non-adventuring NPCs. I still see no reason a half-orc adventurer can't start at 17 in whatever stat the player has a concept for.



So the half-orc can get to 16 Int... by spending more points than the elf or gnome and thus having worse stats elsewhere.

Yes, I have considered it.

In rolled stats, this is a mostly self-correcting problem, with the caveat that a rolled 18 can become a 20 when you have a +2 to throw at it. In the extremely-likely case you do not roll an 18, you just assign your highest rolled stat to the one you want to be best at, and your PC is not "investing more resources" to get his highest stat being the one he wants (unless he has some tied or near-tied scores all at the upper end and chooses to invest in his racial fixed stat with one of them and wanted a different high stat...in which case he STILL has a high target stat, even if his racial-enhanced stat is higher).

In point-buy, the solution is to take the point-buy approach a step further, and make the fixed racial stats get +4/+2 points to their +2/+1 stats. Raise the point-buy stat caps, and now all the racial bonuses do is ensure a floor. I haven't done the math, but it either has a negligible effect on how many resources it takes to buy up the high stat you want, or it has none at all.

[strangebloke]

Yeah. I don't have much of an issue with the ASI changes personally, and it's proof that they're...at least somewhat aware of the problem, but it does seem like a case of putting the cart before the horse in a sense. Or maybe treating the symptom and not the disease.

An actual full rethinking of how default DnD handles races/lineages would very likely include elimination of racial ASIs just as a matter of course, but eliminating racial ASIs, on its own, doesn't really accomplish much besides pissing certain people off. (Well, I mean, certain people will be pissed off regardless, but the point is to also actually achieve a narrative change with the effort.)

Comparing MTF's depiction of drow with the one in the Monster Manual, there's a definite marked improvement in nuance here, yeah. (Still not a fan of the racial monoculture aspect, but it's better.) For me, more movement in this direction writing-wise would honestly be a more promising sign than any amount of fiddling with ASIs.

I wonder, what has the actual lore for races introduced post-tasha's been like? Haven't had a chance to look at Fizban's yet, i dunno what's in there as far as dragon/dragonborn worldbuilding.

IMO if you fixed the coding issues you could retain the ASIs without issue, if you leaned more into "these modifiers represent a certain kind of elf/dwarf/human that lives in this area of this setting, here are rules for modifying them to fit your preference for your own character/setting."

Which, to an extent this is what custom lineage is but as I said its designed poorly and its very boring.

[Segev]

IMO if you fixed the coding issues you could retain the ASIs without issue, if you leaned more into "these modifiers represent a certain kind of elf/dwarf/human that lives in this area of this setting, here are rules for modifying them to fit your preference for your own character/setting."

Which, to an extent this is what custom lineage is but as I said its designed poorly and its very boring.

If the TCE rules were DM-facing, with the expectation being that the DM is making customized (sub)races for his campaigns, then it would be far less...controversial. For one thing, if a DM is doing it, there's an implicit - if not always well-founded - assumption that he's got an eye towards game balance, as opposed to (a similarly implicit and "well"-founded assumption about) players' eyes towards optimization at all costs.

[Psyren]

Considering you and I agree "it's a brain thing" =/= "mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill.", mind now actually clarifying your position; as asked multiple times now?

Is it OK, or not OK, for half-orcs to have an inferior brain compared to high elves?

I disagree with your fundamental premise, that finally being on the same footing Intelligence-wise (or Wis/Cha-wise) but lacking a very specific saving throw bonus = inferior brain.

If you want to play a firbolg wizard and be able to reach the benchmark for +3 in a stat, that's fine and I fully support it. Ideally without allowing gnomes or custom lineages or whatever to reach 18/+4 and create a new optimizer's benchmark to define the new norm that everybody will want to reach for heavily SAD classes. If a backstory speaks to you, the DM should absolutely want to help you make that viable.

If you complain about how your firbolg wizard has to waste points on str and wis to any degree, I'm going to wonder which part of "fey oriented half giant" spoke to you on any level. If it's the bonus action invisibility, I'm not going to be too upset that pre-Tasha's races had more or less congenial ASIs as part of their balance planning and ask for some non-optimal points if your plan is to shop around for racial features.

I don't mind races going forwards being built with flex ASIs to reduce DM overhead. And I don't mind DMs working to make edge cases more viable. But when someone insists that any point spent suboptimally is wasted and hampers character viability, I'm going to want stricter RAW adherence to play the optimization minigame.

Again, it doesn't have to be about optimization. Maybe my Barbarian wants the ability to start with 17 Int or Cha regardless of race.

In rolled stats, this is a mostly self-correcting problem, with the caveat that a rolled 18 can become a 20 when you have a +2 to throw at it. In the extremely-likely case you do not roll an 18, you just assign your highest rolled stat to the one you want to be best at, and your PC is not "investing more resources" to get his highest stat being the one he wants (unless he has some tied or near-tied scores all at the upper end and chooses to invest in his racial fixed stat with one of them and wanted a different high stat...in which case he STILL has a high target stat, even if his racial-enhanced stat is higher).

In point-buy, the solution is to take the point-buy approach a step further, and make the fixed racial stats get +4/+2 points to their +2/+1 stats. Raise the point-buy stat caps, and now all the racial bonuses do is ensure a floor. I haven't done the math, but it either has a negligible effect on how many resources it takes to buy up the high stat you want, or it has none at all.

Floating ASIs are part of that solution - they guarantee that I don't have to spend a different amount to get the stats I want for my concept depending on the race I'm playing.

IMO if you fixed the coding issues you could retain the ASIs without issue, if you leaned more into "these modifiers represent a certain kind of elf/dwarf/human that lives in this area of this setting, here are rules for modifying them to fit your preference for your own character/setting."

DMs can do this right now if they wish. WotC is presenting mechanics that are by and large setting-agnostic, and definitely area/region-agnostic.

[strangebloke]

DMs can do this right now if they wish. WotC is presenting mechanics that are by and large setting-agnostic, and definitely area/region-agnostic.

Saying "DMs can do what they want" is and has always been a trivial solution. What I'm talking about is a careful structure that can be easily used by a 14yo dm, preferably one that varies a bit for each race. And I would like it to be a DM-facing solution.

Furthermore, I'd like every new setting book to introduce subraces/races for each of the races in that region of the setting the book is dealing with.

[Segev]

I disagree with your fundamental premise, that finally being on the same footing Intelligence-wise (or Wis/Cha-wise) but lacking a very specific saving throw bonus = inferior brain.

You can claim that all you like, but you're factually wrong. Being less susceptible to manipulation indicates a more canny and discerning mind in the same way that having a sharper memory for detail or better ability to connect things logically does. Your defense of this superiority of elven brains to half-orc brains is every bit as much (or as little) a problem as others' defense of +2 int for gnomes where other races don't get it.

Again, it doesn't have to be about optimization. Maybe my Barbarian wants the ability to start with 17 Int or Cha regardless of race.

Maybe my Barbarian wants to start with a 20 intelligence or charisma regardless of race. Why should my barbarian be denied this while yours gets the stat he wants?

Floating ASIs are part of that solution - they guarantee that I don't have to spend a different amount to get the stats I want for my concept depending on the race I'm playing.

"As long as I get what I want, screw you and what you want," is what I hear in this statement, since you in no way address what I suggested, despite my attempts to meet you half-way with it. My proposal - as best I can tell - gives players what you claim you want the floating ASI for, and resolves my major problem with floating ASIs. Your response is, "Yeah, well, floating ASIs also solve the problem I have," which implies that the only reason my solution is not even worth discussing is because you don't feel my concerns are even worthy of addressing.

If you have reason why my proposal would not address the concerns you have, please outline that reason.

DMs can do this right now if they wish. WotC is presenting mechanics that are by and large setting-agnostic, and definitely area/region-agnostic.

WotC is presenting mechanics that are race-agnostic.

[qube]

I disagree with your fundamental premise, that finally being on the same footing Intelligence-wise (or Wis/Cha-wise) but lacking a very specific saving throw bonus = inferior brain.

Aside from the fact it's not "one specific saving throw", but an amount of things (resistant to charm, immunity to sleep spells, ability to trance instead of sleep)

OK. Why?

Where I'm sitting, it seems only logical, that, sure

• Yes, the amount one brain is inferior to the other, is directly proportional with the power/... of the trait we are talking about.
• But I can not see the logic with denying.
  Be it "not getting a mental ASI" or "not getting a mental non-ASI racial trait", inferior is inferior

It seems unfounded and pretty arbitrairy to argue

• mental ASI racical trait = brain
• mental non-ASI racical trait = not brain

And if it's not part of the brain - what part of the body is it? And is it then somehow OK, that that part of the body is of half-orcs is inferior to that of other races that get said ability?


Can you explain how you see this?

[Psyren]

You can claim that all you like, but you're factually wrong. Being less susceptible to manipulation indicates a more canny and discerning mind in the same way that having a sharper memory for detail or better ability to connect things logically does. Your defense of this superiority of elven brains to half-orc brains is every bit as much (or as little) a problem as others' defense of +2 int for gnomes where other races don't get it.

No, you're factually wrong. Intelligence as a whole measures "mental acuity, information recall, analytical skill" (PHB 12). Saving throw bonuses do not, unless you have a page cite saying so, in which case feel free to provide it like I have.

Maybe my Barbarian wants to start with a 20 intelligence or charisma regardless of race. Why should my barbarian be denied this while yours gets the stat he wants?
...
"As long as I get what I want, screw you and what you want," is what I hear in this statement, since you in no way address what I suggested, despite my attempts to meet you half-way with it. My proposal - as best I can tell - gives players what you claim you want the floating ASI for, and resolves my major problem with floating ASIs. Your response is, "Yeah, well, floating ASIs also solve the problem I have," which implies that the only reason my solution is not even worth discussing is because you don't feel my concerns are even worthy of addressing.

If you have reason why my proposal would not address the concerns you have, please outline that reason.

Just so I'm clear, your proposal is to extend point buy to 16 and keep fixed ASIs, correct? I want to be sure I'm understanding it correctly before I explain why I reject that.

WotC is presenting mechanics that are race-agnostic.

The floating ASI racial is, but all the other racials that still exist are not.

OK. Why?

See first response.

[Xihirli]

Charm is a magical thing that doesn't have to obey any of the rules you all are talking about.
Charmed isn't just "being caught up in someone's charisma" in this game, it's a status inflicted by sirens and harpies that is magical in nature.

Odysseus was the smartest person on his ship and is the smartest mortal in either of Homer's famous epics, he still failed his save vs charmed against the sirens. You're picking a different definition as an excuse to talk past Psyren's points.

[Salmon343]

In rolled stats, this is a mostly self-correcting problem, with the caveat that a rolled 18 can become a 20 when you have a +2 to throw at it. In the extremely-likely case you do not roll an 18, you just assign your highest rolled stat to the one you want to be best at, and your PC is not "investing more resources" to get his highest stat being the one he wants (unless he has some tied or near-tied scores all at the upper end and chooses to invest in his racial fixed stat with one of them and wanted a different high stat...in which case he STILL has a high target stat, even if his racial-enhanced stat is higher).

In point-buy, the solution is to take the point-buy approach a step further, and make the fixed racial stats get +4/+2 points to their +2/+1 stats. Raise the point-buy stat caps, and now all the racial bonuses do is ensure a floor. I haven't done the math, but it either has a negligible effect on how many resources it takes to buy up the high stat you want, or it has none at all.

Marrying the point-buy maths with racial bonuses would be great for making the system less min-maxy at character creation (I'd like this idea extended to ASIs too, otherwise there's too much weight in starting stats. The system changes from valuing a scaled point system (point buy) to unscaled (ASI and racial bonuses) and its just weird.).

It'd still have a impact on race selection, though. If we assume that each race only gets one +4 point-buy bonus (for simplicity), then a high-elf wizard gets the +4 to INT that they'd want, while a goliath wizard may get +4 to STR instead, so have to find that +4 to INT somewhere else. They effectively have less points to use, as their STR bonus is wasted on their class. It does fix the problem of it being impossible for certain races to start with a 16 in their main stat however, which has large knock on effects on level ups and ASIs, as well as general play.

A general comment on my stance on Tasha's removing set racial bonuses, and why I agree with it:

Certain races having higher INT naturally than other ones evokes painful stereotypes from the real world - whether intentional or not. We communicate by evoking shared concepts. Language for instance, has meaning. Both people communicating have the same understanding of that meaning, so can share complex ideas. Ideas don't exist in a vacuum, and can inadvertently evoke different concepts through similarities (such as in content, pronunciation, spelling, etc.), so care should be taken to avoid evoking painful concepts which run counter to the hobby.

Arguments are often made as to whose fault the interpretation is - on the creator, or the consumer? The answer is, sadly, subjective. If only one person views something in a particular way, then it may be seen as a misunderstanding, where someone's perception needs to be changed. But when many people see something in a particular way, then it may mean that the idea itself isn't getting across correctly, or that the idea itself isn't appropriate. If a lot of people, or a particular group, are constantly offended by a particular topic, then the game cannot be truly welcoming, and is instead alienating. Which runs counter to the hobby.

[OldTrees1]

In point-buy, the solution is to take the point-buy approach a step further, and make the fixed racial stats get +4/+2 points to their +2/+1 stats. Raise the point-buy stat caps, and now all the racial bonuses do is ensure a floor. I haven't done the math, but it either has a negligible effect on how many resources it takes to buy up the high stat you want, or it has none at all.

Spoiler: Math testing the solution

Show

Desired Array: 16/14/14/12/10/10
Point cost 8=0, 10=2, 12=4, 14=7, 16=12
Total cost without mods 34
Segev's solution applied to +2 Primary/+1 Secondary = 28 points
Segev's solution applied to +2 Septenary/+1 Penitentiary = 30 points but with a 10->12 in the 6th stat
Segev's solution applied to +2 Quaternary/+1 Septenary = 28 points

Desired Array: 16/16/14/(shrug) with a cost of 31+shrug and a budget of 33* points before mods
Primary/Secondary = 8 points left
12/10/10
Tertiary/Primary = 8 points left
12/10/10
Tertiary/Septenary = 8 points left, 2 earmarked for Septenary
12/10/10
Septenary/Tertiary = 8 points left, 4 earmarked for Septenary
12/08/12
Septenary/Penitentiary = 8 points left, 4 earmarked for Septenary, 2 earmarked for Penitentiary
10/10/12
*33 because 16/16/14 costs 31.

Segev, replacing +2/+1 with 4/2 earmarked points in point buy works rather well under 3 assumptions
1) Point buy extends to 16 (I assumed a cost of 12) for legacy support. You mentioned raising the point buy caps. This is my assumption of price and ceiling.
2) Point buy budget increases slightly. I tested with 33 before mods since 16/16/14 cost 31.
3) It is okay if the Quaternary ability is lower when the Septenary/Penitentiary abilities both have earmarked points.

Marrying the point-buy maths with racial bonuses would be great for making the system less min-maxy at character creation (I'd like this idea extended to ASIs too, otherwise there's too much weight in starting stats. The system changes from valuing a scaled point system (point buy) to unscaled (ASI and racial bonuses) and its just weird.).

I did more math on Segev's proposal. You might want to check it out.

You have a good point about Intelligence. However humanity still needs to be able to talk about non humans. AI research is progressing and it benefits us all to have the ability to talk about non humans with greater intellects. Existing problems take priority over future problems, but it would be good to learn from past mistakes and avoid future ones. That is a fine line with some clear changes and others that are a bit murky.

Also good way to address the consumer/creator issue with interpretations. I would like to add that, just like fault is subjective and not conserved, opportunity to improve the situation is not conserved.

Charm is a magical thing that doesn't have to obey any of the rules you all are talking about.
Charmed isn't just "being caught up in someone's charisma" in this game, it's a status inflicted by sirens and harpies that is magical in nature.

Odysseus was the smartest person on his ship and is the smartest mortal in either of Homer's famous epics, he still failed his save vs charmed against the sirens. You're picking a different definition as an excuse to talk past Psyren's points.

Charm is a mind effecting effect. It affects agency and makes them more susceptible to social checks.

Defenses against charm are defenses against a mind effecting effect. That sounds like the mind has a situational better defense.

That implies a trait that provides a defense against charm is a trait that provides a mental advantage. It does not need to map to any of the 3 mental abilities (although usually higher Wisdom or Charisma has a similar effect). If there is an argument as broad as "mental advantages are wrong" then a defense against charm falls under that scope. If there is an argument that "some mental advantages are wrong and others are okay, and the difference is XYZ" then explaining why the difference XYZ is the deciding factor would be required for the argument to be valid.

I'm always hearing that x is code for y, but I've never seen the code book and am charitable enough to take people at face value until THEY give me a reason to do otherwise.

Coding is a bit complicated and I am having trouble finding a good source to explain it instead of me.

Coding is basically a euphemism known to 2 groups that became charged enough than it affects the communication of people outside those groups with people within those groups.

If I write a book and unknowingly it contains literal phrases that contain these euphemisms, then it would be nice to be taken at face value. However the readers from those 2 groups can't help but see the euphemisms.

No comment on the rest of your post. I just wanted to clear up "coding" does not mean "code book" and can be done without intent.

[Psyren]

Charm is a magical thing that doesn't have to obey any of the rules you all are talking about.
Charmed isn't just "being caught up in someone's charisma" in this game, it's a status inflicted by sirens and harpies that is magical in nature.

Odysseus was the smartest person on his ship and is the smartest mortal in either of Homer's famous epics, he still failed his save vs charmed against the sirens. You're picking a different definition as an excuse to talk past Psyren's points.

Correct.

Charm is a mind effecting effect. It affects agency and makes them more susceptible to social checks.

Defenses against charm are defenses against a mind effecting effect. That sounds like the mind has a situational better defense.

That implies a trait that provides a defense against charm is a trait that provides a mental advantage. It does not need to map to any of the 3 mental abilities (although usually higher Wisdom or Charisma has a similar effect). If there is an argument as broad as "mental advantages are wrong" then a defense against charm falls under that scope. If there is an argument that "some mental advantages are wrong and others are okay, and the difference is XYZ" then explaining why the difference XYZ is the deciding factor would be required for the argument to be valid.

Let's put aside for the moment that "mind-affecting" doesn't exist in 5e - creatures are either susceptible to being charmed or not, and those that are susceptible but resistant can be so for an array of reasons that don't imply their "brains are better." For example, a Halfling's Lucky trait and a Hobgoblin's Saving Face also let them beat charm effects others would have failed, without any kind of implication about the quality of their brains (or those of the creatures that would have failed against the same effect.)

The more important point is that the game does define the "XYZ difference." All ability scores are defined, including the mental ones - Intelligence measures mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill, so having lower Intelligence implies you are worse at these things than an adventurer whose fixed ASI lets them exceed yours. Similarly, lower Charisma implies you are less eloquent/confiident, and lower Wisdom implies you are less insightful or intuitive. Those are far more sweeping or general descriptions of a character than resistance against one specific condition, which as noted above can be resisted in a variety of ways and originate from a variety of (usually magical) sources without implying anything about the mental aptitude or capability of the character in question. Thus, for the game to say "I don't care if your half-orc adventurer grew up in Candlekeep or got a full scholarship to Strixhaven, 15 or bust" is just unnecessary and can even be callous - that is a much broader "mental advantage" than resisting a magical condition.

[OldTrees1]

Let's put aside for the moment that "mind-affecting" doesn't exist in 5e

Let's remember that I said mind affecting effect, not a "mind-affecting" keyword. Charm in 5E does affect the mind. There is a very good reason why Charm is usually defended against via a Mental saving throw.

reasons that don't imply their "brains are better." For example, a Halfling's Lucky trait and a Hobgoblin's Saving Face also let them beat charm effects others would have failed, without any kind of implication about the quality of their brains (or those of the creatures that would have failed against the same effect.)

I'm sorry, but what part of "stronger defense against a mind affecting effect is not a stronger defense against a mind affecting effect? Sure both of those examples demonstrate physicals advantages in addition to mental advantages, but it is still a mental advantage. Halfling minds are lucky. Hobgoblins minds can use fear of weakness to bolster mental defenses. Those both imply those minds have advantages.

If some mental advantages are okay and others are not, then there are the questions "which ones" and "WHY only those ones".

The more important point is that the game does define the "XYZ difference." All ability scores are defined, including the mental ones - Intelligence measures mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill, so having lower Intelligence implies you are worse at these things than an adventurer whose fixed ASI lets them exceed yours. Similarly, lower Charisma implies you are less eloquent/confiident, and lower Wisdom implies you are less insightful or intuitive. Those are far more sweeping or general descriptions of a character than resistance against one specific condition, which as noted above can be resisted in a variety of ways and originate from a variety of (usually magical) sources without implying anything about the mental aptitude or capability of the character in question. Thus, for the game to say "I don't care if your half-orc adventurer grew up in Candlekeep or got a full scholarship to Strixhaven, 15 or bust" is just unnecessary and can even be callous - that is a much broader "mental advantage" than resisting a magical condition.

The game does not define the XYZ difference. I am referring to the difference the argument is making. The game is not posting in this thread. Your answer to "WHY that XYZ difference instead of another XYZ difference?" is "some are broader and others are narrower, the broader ones are bad, the narrower ones are good"? Well, now that you have presented your choice of explanation for the difference you chose, maybe that will contribute to your discussion with Segev and others.

For example:
Hmm. Is that limited to mental or would it apply to broad physical differences like Size? Or what about Lucky?
Or Why does broad vs narrow matter? What about multiple narrow traits?

PS: When a trait/number aggregates many concepts, being lower/higher on the aggregate does not imply being lower/higher on each component. It just means the game does not zoom in that far. You obviously already know this. I just felt it worth clarifying.

PS2: You know the game does not say "15 or bust" ever. A Goliath Cleric with 14 Wis will do just fine.


Edit: Also seriously? Hobgoblin's "Saving Face" feature is a species trait you are okay with? It seems much worse than Goliaths having +2 Str to me. That is a cultural trait at best in my book. Maybe even a character specific trait. I'll just chalk that up to differences of opinion.

Edit 2: Actually Hobgoblins are a good example of a species that mechanically is basically Human. I only see 1 species trait (Darkvision) and a bunch of cultural traits (The +2 Con and +1 Int are not portrayed as species traits in the flavor. Martial Training is cultural. Language is cultural.) or individual traits (Saving Face). So they are Human with Darkvision + Cultural & Individual traits.

[Psyren]

When a trait/number aggregates many concepts, being lower/higher on the aggregate does not imply being lower/higher on each component. It just means the game does not zoom in that far. You obviously already know this. I just felt it worth clarifying.

It's more accurate to say it may or may not imply that, rather than categorically does not. WotC's actions and statements suggest that they, at least, do see an implication there.

You know the game does not say "15 or bust" ever. A Goliath Cleric with 14 Wis will do just fine.

You're right - what it says is "if you want a character who starts with 17 Wis, Firbolg (etc) or bust*." Or at least, it did before Tasha's.

*or roll really well, good luck

Also seriously? Hobgoblin's "Saving Face" feature is a species trait you are okay with? It seems much worse than Goliaths having +2 Str to me. That is a cultural trait at best in my book. Maybe even a character specific trait.

I didn't say I was "okay with" Saving Face. Just that it doesn't make any implications about a hobgoblin's measurement of acuity, eloquence or insight relative to other races, the way an ASI difference does.

[OldTrees1]

It's more accurate to say it may or may not imply that, rather than categorically does not. WotC's actions and statements suggest that they, at least, do see an implication there.

I stand by "does not" until someone disproves basic math. A change in an aggregation does not imply a change in each component that can contribute to that aggregation.

You're right - what it says is "if you want a character who starts with 17 Wis, Firbolg (etc) or bust*." Or at least, it did before Tasha's.

*or roll

That is more accurate. However notice you changed from "Half orc, 15 or bust" to "If you want 17, do Firbolg (etc) or bust". You changed everything about the sentence including the subject ("Half orc, get 15 or bust" vs "if you want 15, get 15 or bust"). 5E is happy to say 14 is not a bust.

I didn't say I was "okay with" Saving Face. Just that it doesn't make any implications about a hobgoblin's measurement of acuity, eloquence or insight relative to other races, the way an ASI difference does.

Saving Face does make implications about Hobgoblin's mental defenses being better in some ways than other species. Hobgoblin minds are better at defense than other minds? Greater defenses against all saving throws is a rather broad category too. (Sidenote, I have not even touched on the mental ability checks or mental attack rolls yet)

[Psyren]

I stand by "does not" until someone disproves basic math. A change in an aggregation does not imply a change in each component that can contribute to that aggregation.

You can't math away an implication. "A creature's Intelligence score encapsulates several different attributes, among them a creature's general mental acuity/information recall/analytical skill" is a true statement in 5e, and a lower Int cannot definitively be said to be avoiding any or all of those three things. You may not think it does, but WotC appears to disagree.

That is more accurate. However notice you changed from "Half orc, 15 or bust" to "If you want 17, do Firbolg (etc) or bust". You changed everything about the sentence including the subject ("Half orc, get 15 or bust" vs "if you want 15, get 15 or bust"). 5E is happy to say 14 is not a bust.

Of course I noticed I should hope using different wording when one's meaning is misconstrued or unclear is not that groundbreaking an approach to discussion, especially in a text-based medium.

Saving Face does make implications about Hobgoblin's mental defenses being better in some ways than other species. Hobgoblin minds are better at defense than other minds? Greater defenses against all saving throws is a rather broad category too.

I'm not disputing "Saving Face = mental defense." I'm disputing "mental defense = higher-quality brain."

[OldTrees1]

You can't math away an implication. "A creature's Intelligence score encapsulates several different attributes, among them a creature's general mental acuity/information recall/analytical skill" is a true statement in 5e, and a lower Int cannot definitively be said to be avoiding any or all of those three things. You may not think it does, but WotC appears to disagree.

P1: The average height of humanity yesterday was 10 meters.
P2: Today the average height is 11 meters.
C: Therefore every human changed height.
C2: Therefore every human increased in height.
C3: Therefore every human increased in height by 1 meter.
Jumping from P1+P2 to C is an invalid step*. P1+P2 does not imply C.
Since it does not imply C it also does not imply C2 or C3 (included for perfect clarity about the extent to which there is no implication).

* It does not matter than P1 and P2 are false. I am talking about the invalid logical step of P1 & P2 --> C.

I'm not disputing "Saving Face = mental defense." I'm disputing "mental defense = higher-quality brain."

1) Well I would* dispute "higher stats = higher-quality brain" but that is not enough without a reason for that arbitrary dispute. You have given a reason which I parsed as "broad traits that affect mental are bad and narrow ones are not bad". If I apply that reason, then Saving Face should be bad by that metric, to the extent to which you have communicated your reasoning. So if you are disputing "mental defense (part of mental) = 'higher-quality brain' " then you could elaborate further or triple check your reasoning.

2) Saving Face also applies to mental ability checks.

* I would make that dispute, but it is lower priority so I am not going to.

[Sigreid]

Coding is a bit complicated and I am having trouble finding a good source to explain it instead of me.

Coding is basically a euphemism known to 2 groups that became charged enough than it affects the communication of people outside those groups with people within those groups.

If I write a book and unknowingly it contains literal phrases that contain these euphemisms, then it would be nice to be taken at face value. However the readers from those 2 groups can't help but see the euphemisms.

No comment on the rest of your post. I just wanted to clear up "coding" does not mean "code book" and can be done without intent.

The problem with that is lots of creatures in myth, fantasy and legend were created to be caricatures of what is good or bad in mankind. Particularly with myths and legends this is done to paint a picture of what to avoid being or aspire to. The fact that some people chose to use that caricature to paint and defame or elevate some group doesn't mean that's what the source is about. People are pretty terrible, and will warp anything to be terrible.

[OldTrees1]

The problem with that is lots of creatures in myth, fantasy and legend were created to be caricatures of what is good or bad in mankind. Particularly with myths and legends this is done to paint a picture of what to avoid being or aspire to. The fact that some people chose to use that caricature to paint and defame or elevate some group doesn't mean that's what the source is about. People are pretty terrible, and will warp anything to be terrible.

Yes people are pretty terrible and they can twist anything into being a euphemism they can hide behind when they defame a group.

On the other hand creators want to tell stories about myths and legends, or modern additions. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't intend to include those euphemisms from the terrible people.

Coding is what happens when the creator fails to avoid those euphemisms. This impacts how the defamed group interfaces with the creation.

At that point the creator has variations on 3 4 5+ options:
A) Do nothing.
B) Try to move the myth/legend away from the euphemism. This works exceptionally well if the unintentional coding is not attached to a critical part of the description.
C) Embrace the coding but make everything around the coding non offensive to negate the impact. Coding is basically an analogy injected into a work regardless of the creator or consumer's intentions, so if the analogy becomes harmless, then it might be non offensive.
D) Create new content instead.
E) Work to destroy the euphemism. (Hard to do and requires work outside of their creations)

[qube]

Charm is a magical thing that doesn't have to obey any of the rules you all are talking about.

Do note - charm is a condition. Regardless how you got it, elves are resistant against it. If there's a herbalist potion that charms someone, elves get advantage (opposite to gnomes, who only get their advantage against magic)

Also note that focussing on the specifics of advantage against charm - which is only half of a single racial trait, does not in any means adress the broader issue of mental non-ASI racical trait in general.

No, you're factually wrong. Intelligence as a whole measures "mental acuity, information recall, analytical skill" (PHB 12). Saving throw bonuses do not, unless you have a page cite saying so, in which case feel free to provide it like I have.

...


See first response.

Except, this does not shed any ligt to the points made.

To repeat:

Where I'm sitting, it seems only logical, that, sure, the amount one brain is inferior to the other, is directly proportional with the power/... of the trait we are talking about. But I can not see the logic with denying.

Be it "not getting a mental ASI" or "not getting a mental non-ASI racial trait", inferior is inferior

Trying to differentiate between ability scores & saving throws doesn't adress this. We already established - in fact you pointed it out - that "brain" =/= "mental acuity, information recall, analytical skill". Likewise

It seems unfounded and pretty arbitrairy to argue
- mental ASI racical trait = brain
- mental non-ASI racical trait = not brain

This does not adress this either. As we don't even talk about just saving throws, but mental non-ASI racical trait in general, this includes saving throws, the ability for an elf to live without sleep, ...

But most importantly

if it's not part of the brain - what part of the body is it?

And is it then somehow OK, that that part of the body is of half-orcs is inferior to that of other races that get said ability?

Is the brain unique, or does this apply to all organs. You did not adress this at all.

[Psyren]

Yes people are pretty terrible and they can twist anything into being a euphemism they can hide behind when they defame a group.

On the other hand creators want to tell stories about myths and legends, or modern additions. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't intend to include those euphemisms from the terrible people.

Coding is what happens when the creator fails to avoid those euphemisms. This impacts how the defamed group interfaces with the creation.

At that point the creator has variations on 4 options:
A) Do nothing.
B) Try to move the myth/legend away from the euphemism. This works exceptionally well if the unintentional coding is not attached to a critical part of the description.
C) Create new content instead.
D) Work to destroy the euphemism. (Hard to do and requires work outside of their creations)

I view a policy shift that says "it's possible for geniuses, prodigies, and savants to come from any race now" as being part of B.

P1: The average height of humanity yesterday was 10 meters.
P2: Today the average height is 11 meters.
C: Therefore every human changed height.
C2: Therefore every human increased in height.
C3: Therefore every human increased in height by 1 meter.
Jumping from P1+P2 to C is an invalid step*. P1+P2 does not imply C.
Since it does not imply C it also does not imply C2 or C3 (included for perfect clarity about the extent to which there is no implication).

* It does not matter than P1 and P2 are false. I am talking about the invalid logical step of P1 & P2 --> C.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with "A change in an aggregation does not imply a change in each component that can contribute to that aggregation." I'm disagreeing that you can definitively rule out any of those components as being responsible for the change.

In other words a half-orc's lower starting Int may be due to a reduced capacity for analytical skill/mental acuity/informational recall relative to an elf, or it may be due to something else - but the former possibility is enough reason for WotC to have made this policy change, and for me to agree with it.

1) Well I would* dispute "higher stats = higher-quality brain" but that is not enough without a reason for that arbitrary dispute. You have given a reason which I parsed as "broad traits that affect mental are bad and narrow ones are not bad". If I apply that reason, then Saving Face should be bad by that metric, to the extent to which you have communicated your reasoning. So if you are disputing "mental defense (part of mental) = 'higher-quality brain' " then you could elaborate further or triple check your reasoning.

2) Saving Face also applies to mental ability checks.

* I would make that dispute, but it is lower priority so I am not going to.

I view them differently because checks and saving throws are not attributes - they are situations. Being better or worse at a specific situation does not have the same impugnation as saying someone is generally less intelligent or less wise or less charismatic than someone else, especially if the only reason for that difference is their race. Per the rulebook, ability scores measure qualities that most people would consider to be positive, and I can understand WotC realizing that "you can't have as much of that quality because of your race" might be something their inclusive hobby would like to get away from.

Trying to differentiate between ability scores & saving throws doesn't adress this.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on whether checks/saving throws and attributes are fundamentally different. I don't think we're going to convince each other, certainly you're not going to convince me.

[OldTrees1]

I view a policy shift that says "it's possible for geniuses, prodigies, and savants to come from any race now" as being part of B.

I edited in a new option that fits it better. By my reading the policy shift does nothing to remove the coding (which is one of my critiques), it tries to make the implications of the coding be non offensive.

Oh, and it was already "possible for geniuses, prodigies, and savants to come from any species". You really like that imprecise hyperbole .

C) Embrace the coding but make everything around the coding non offensive to negate the impact. Coding is basically an analogy injected into a work regardless of the creator or consumer's intentions, so if the analogy becomes harmless, then it might be non offensive.

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with "A change in an aggregation does not imply a change in each component that can contribute to that aggregation." I'm disagreeing that you can definitively rule out any of those components as being responsible for the change.

Aka I stand by "does not" and you have ceased disagreeing.

I view them differently because checks and saving throws are not attributes - they are situations. Being better or worse at a specific situation does not have the same impugnation as saying someone is generally less intelligent or less wise or less charismatic than someone else, especially if the only reason for that difference is their race. Per the rulebook, ability scores measure qualities that most people would consider to be positive, and I can understand WotC realizing that "you can't have as much of that quality because of your race" might be something their inclusive hobby would like to get away from.

So your reason for WHY you divide XYZ at abilities being bad but other traits being okay is attributes vs situations? Some variation on passive advantage vs active advantage? Explaining that in the ongoing subthread would be relevant to the ongoing subthread. I was just pointing out it needs to be explained rather than declared without explanation.

Although it sounds like you would not be open on the topic, so I fear it will be just pages of people repeating at each other. I am glad I am staying at arm's length from that subthread. Have a good day.

[Psyren]

I edited in a new option that fits it better. By my reading the policy shift does nothing to remove the coding (which is one of my critiques), it tries to make the implications of the coding be non offensive.

Oh, and it was already "possible for geniuses, prodigies, and savants to come from any species". You really like that imprecise hyperbole .

Ones who are not lesser-than solely because of their race, then.

So your reason for WHY you divide XYZ at abilities being bad but other traits being okay is attributes vs situations? Some variation on passive advantage vs active advantage?

More like "general quality" vs. "specific circumstance."

C) Embrace the coding but make everything around the coding non offensive to negate the impact. Coding is basically an analogy injected into a work regardless of the creator or consumer's intentions, so if the analogy becomes harmless, then it might be non offensive.

You might have already bowed out but I'm still curious - how would you propose they do that?

[OldTrees1]

You might have already bowed out but I'm still curious - how would you propose they do that?

I suspect you quoted the wrong part. C describes a broad category and I think Tasha's was an incomplete attempt at it.

A) Do nothing.
B) Try to move the myth/legend away from the euphemism. This works exceptionally well if the unintentional coding is not attached to a critical part of the description.
C) Embrace the coding but make everything around the coding non offensive to negate the impact. Coding is basically an analogy injected into a work regardless of the creator or consumer's intentions, so if the analogy becomes harmless, then it might be non offensive.
D) Create new content instead.
E) Work to destroy the euphemism. (Hard to do and requires work outside of their creations)

Basically C says "Okay so component ABC has coding that matches with DEF. That means there is an injected analogy for any traits we apply to ABC also apply to DEF. So remove all offensive traits applied to ABC and any offensive differences between ABC and DEF."

I expect the complete revision of Half Orc (on the C strategy) would be Custom Lineage (Human) named Half Orc and might include Darkvision (but even that is on the chopping block). Tasha's is an incomplete implementation of strategy C.

Strategy B would be "Okay so component ABC has unintentional coding that matches DEF. Remove that coding and continue." however Strategy B is much harder to implement and I cannot give you a complete map to the destination. Also some species might need some of Strategy E as part of strategy B.

I prefer strategy BDE. It is the hard way but it has a better outcome. It appeals to my idealism but I don't know if it is realistic. Also it is not mutually exclusive with Tasha's, so I still hope WotC improves.

[Rukelnikov]

You know the game does not say "15 or bust" ever. A Goliath Cleric with 14 Wis will do just fine.

You're right - what it says is "if you want a character who starts with 17 Wis, Firbolg (etc) or bust*." Or at least, it did before Tasha's.

*or roll really well, good luck

No, what the system is saying is "if you want your character to be wiser, play a Firbolg (etc.)"

I didn't say I was "okay with" Saving Face. Just that it doesn't make any implications about a hobgoblin's measurement of acuity, eloquence or insight relative to other races, the way an ASI difference does.

Saving Face does make implications about Hobgoblin's mental defenses being better in some ways than other species. Hobgoblin minds are better at defense than other minds? Greater defenses against all saving throws is a rather broad category too. (Sidenote, I have not even touched on the mental ability checks or mental attack rolls yet)

There's a core difference in that saving face is not something innate, in a way it talks about software not hardware. +2 Int, in a way, means better hardware, which I'm perfectly fine with(*). I think those atributes which are innate are the ones that cause rejection.

* If I can accept groups of fantasy creatures being smarter than humans (illithids, dragons, empyreans, etc), I can accept another group of fantasy creatures (Gnomes) being smarter than humans, and since I can accept smarter groups I can also accept humans being smarter than other groups of fantasy creatures (most playable races, ogres, trolls, etc)

Ones who are not lesser-than solely because of their race, then.

There are multiple things wrong in that assessment. First and foremost the assumption that having a lower score (particularly in Int, since it has turned to be the focus for the las couple pages) means being lesser (Forest Gump is a great movie).

And even if we accepted that faulty assumption, there's a second problem assuming that floating ability scores doesn't mean being "lesser than" solely because of race, it still does! Dragons exist, Empyreans exist, Demigods exist, they still are "lesser than" solely because of their race.

Why is it that is ok for Humans to be "lesser" than Dragons, but its not ok for Leonins to be "lesser" than Humans??

[Sigreid]

Yes people are pretty terrible and they can twist anything into being a euphemism they can hide behind when they defame a group.

On the other hand creators want to tell stories about myths and legends, or modern additions. I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they don't intend to include those euphemisms from the terrible people.

Coding is what happens when the creator fails to avoid those euphemisms. This impacts how the defamed group interfaces with the creation.

At that point the creator has variations on 3 4 5+ options:
A) Do nothing.
B) Try to move the myth/legend away from the euphemism. This works exceptionally well if the unintentional coding is not attached to a critical part of the description.
C) Embrace the coding but make everything around the coding non offensive to negate the impact. Coding is basically an analogy injected into a work regardless of the creator or consumer's intentions, so if the analogy becomes harmless, then it might be non offensive.
D) Create new content instead.
E) Work to destroy the euphemism. (Hard to do and requires work outside of their creations)

"Coding" still seems to me to just be a particularly damaging and unfair form of projection. That's pretty much all I have to say on it. I don't think the "coding" argument is fair to creators and will ultimately lead to thinner, weaker and less interesting content.

[Draconi Redfir]

No, what the system is saying is "if you want your character to be wiser, play a Firbolg (etc.)"

I always read it as "Oh you want to play X? Here's a bonus to Y! Enoy!" Sure the bonus might not be applicable to your main stat, but you can still have some fun with it. An Elf Barbarian could have lots of interesting dynamics to it with a higher then normal dexterity. Finesse weapons anyone?

"Coding" still seems to me to just be a particularly damaging and unfair form of projection. That's pretty much all I have to say on it. I don't think the "coding" argument is fair to creators and will ultimately lead to thinner, weaker and less interesting content.

Seriously. I've seen someone say a character from a D&D livestream is "X-coded" and then get upset that said "coding" wasn't played out at all. In reality the player just made and played their character however they wanted too, and whatever "Coding" the viewer saw was just them projecting something that didn't exist onto the character. it was really uncomfortable to see.