Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[GooeyChewie]

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

The problem applies to tables which want to use fixed ASIs with post-Tasha’s races. Those ASIs simply do not exist.

Can the DM decide what they want to use for the ASIs? Yes, but the DM fixing a problem is not the same as there not being a problem.

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.

So you recognize that not providing suggested ASIs is a problem for other tables, and you’re just okay with denying those tables the solution to the problem? As you put it, “nuts to that.”

How much additional design time do you think it takes WotC to put suggested ASIs on new races? If the answer is a substantial amount of time, why are you okay pushing that time to DMs? If the answer is not a substantial amount of time, why would you want them not to provide the information? Do you really think adding suggested ASIs would push the release date for any book back even in the slightest?

[Psyren]

How much additional design time do you think it takes WotC to put suggested ASIs on new races?

I have no clue, ask them. There are multiple ways.

If the answer is a substantial amount of time, why are you okay pushing that time to DMs?

I don't think most DMs care, and therefore it won't take them any time at all.

[Segev]

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 does.

Not sure why you're okay with a half-orc adventurer not being able to have all the same abilities as an elf adventurer from the get-go, then. It seems inconsistent to me; a distinction drawn entirely arbitrarily. I know you've said otherwise; I do not find your assertions convincing, in the same way that somebody telling me that a blue M&M tastes better than a red M&M does not convince me that they taste any different at all.

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.

While you're fine with speeds being an insurmountable difference, and loathe surmountable differences as something atrocious that WotC is right to have done away with, I doubt that will remain the case if and when WotC makes the next generation of racial designs have no ASIs at all, but still gives them traits that make the races align with any sort of recognizable racial characteristics. If elf, dwarf, gnome, etc. are more than purely cosmetic distinctions, it will still be "unacceptable."

This is a bad pattern, and will continue to lead to D&D losing elements that make it D&D, such as having elves and dwarves that are in any way different than humans.

I don't think most DMs care, and therefore it won't take them any time at all.

I think more DMs care than do not. WotC tends to make the same mistake over and over again: catering to vocal minorities who are not even majority made up of customers. See: 4th edition.

[Pex]

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.

I nod my head. We have accord here.

[MadBear]

Not sure why you're okay with a half-orc adventurer not being able to have all the same abilities as an elf adventurer from the get-go, then. It seems inconsistent to me; a distinction drawn entirely arbitrarily. I know you've said otherwise; I do not find your assertions convincing, in the same way that somebody telling me that a blue M&M tastes better than a red M&M does not convince me that they taste any different at all.

While I can't speak for Psyren, I can say for myself, the difference is in part because of how the whole ASI works in general. Everyone gets ASI and everyone caps at 20, a halfling can have 20 strength same as an orc. An orc can get 20 intelligence same as an elf. But no orc is going to level up into getting elf abilities and no elf will level up to aquire halfling abilities, those remain interesting choices. Under the old system playing a gnomish barbarian because you like gnomes racial abilities, feels bad, because your ability scores don't mesh with what you're interested in that character doing.

For example, in the new campaign I'm playing in, I picked the Harregon, because I really liked the cool abilities it came with, and being able to put the stats where I needed to make my monk function is much more fun, then if it had a bonus to let's say intelligence, which would've not been as helpful.

If we wanted to talk redesigning the game, we might implement a system where different races have caps to represent their races pinnacle of strength (halflings at 14, humans 15, orcs 16, etc.), and this would then create true distinctions between the races that legitimately matter. But it opens up a whole other can of worms. Either these difference are inherently prominent enough that playing a race that doesn't have the right caps would feel bad always, or the difference would need to be small enough that it didn't really matter. And that's to not even touch the problematic elements that start to get involved when you bring intelligence into the mix.

[Segev]

While I can't speak for Psyren, I can say for myself, the difference is in part because of how the whole ASI works in general. Everyone gets ASI and everyone caps at 20, a halfling can have 20 strength same as an orc. An orc can get 20 intelligence same as an elf. But no orc is going to level up into getting elf abilities and no elf will level up to aquire halfling abilities, those remain interesting choices. Under the old system playing a gnomish barbarian because you like gnomes racial abilities, feels bad, because your ability scores don't mesh with what you're interested in that character doing.

For example, in the new campaign I'm playing in, I picked the Harregon, because I really liked the cool abilities it came with, and being able to put the stats where I needed to make my monk function is much more fun, then if it had a bonus to let's say intelligence, which would've not been as helpful.

If we wanted to talk redesigning the game, we might implement a system where different races have caps to represent their races pinnacle of strength (halflings at 14, humans 15, orcs 16, etc.), and this would then create true distinctions between the races that legitimately matter. But it opens up a whole other can of worms. Either these difference are inherently prominent enough that playing a race that doesn't have the right caps would feel bad always, or the difference would need to be small enough that it didn't really matter. And that's to not even touch the problematic elements that start to get involved when you bring intelligence into the mix.

See, creating hard caps is actually WORSE than the situation you're decrying as "feeling bad."

Sure, it might "feel bad" that you have to actually make choices about whether your choice of race is worth that extra +1 to hit and maybe damage, but it mathematically is not nearly the big deal people made it out to be, meaning it was doing its exact job: creating a sense that you're playing something a little unusual, and suggesting you look at ways to work with what you do get from it.

It sure "feels bad" to me for my halfling who rides a pteradon to be unable to use heavy weapons; why should I be so restricted? Isn't the visual of a dino-riding halfling swinging down with a two-handed razor blade to lop off the heads of bandits kidnapping women to sell to the neogi slavers a cool one? Why am I denied this? I can't even overcome it with ASIs, like I can the fact that the half-orc paladin started with two more strength than I did!

[Just Helping]

It sure "feels bad" to me for my halfling who rides a pteradon to be unable to use heavy weapons; why should I be so restricted? Isn't the visual of a dino-riding halfling swinging down with a two-handed razor blade to lop off the heads of bandits kidnapping women to sell to the neogi slavers a cool one? Why am I denied this?

I would personally look to the 5e weapon system for answers to this first -- a lot of popular weapons aren't even brought over.

I can't have anything like a 3.5/PF/4e spiked chain fighter, and someone I play with can't have a Piercing polearm as he desires.

[Segev]

I would personally look to the 5e weapon system for answers to this first -- a lot of popular weapons aren't even brought over.

I can't have anything like a 3.5/PF/4e spiked chain fighter, and someone I play with can't have a Piercing polearm as he desires.

Utterly beside the point: the hafling will NEVER be able to wield the greatsword. If spiked chain got brought over and was Heavy, the halfling never could wield it, either. Even when he got to Str 20. Yet somehow, the fact he can't start as high in Str as a half-orc is more unfairly limiting to the concept of the strong halfling fighter wielding the biggest weapon possible than the complete inability to wield the biggest weapons.

[Psyren]

I think more DMs care than do not.

I don't.

Not sure why you're okay with a half-orc adventurer not being able to have all the same abilities as an elf adventurer from the get-go, then. It seems inconsistent to me; a distinction drawn entirely arbitrarily. I know you've said otherwise; I do not find your assertions convincing, in the same way that somebody telling me that a blue M&M tastes better than a red M&M does not convince me that they taste any different at all.

All I can do is cite the designers of the game you're playing. If their own words can't convince you then yeah, I won't be able to either.

This is a bad pattern, and will continue to lead to D&D losing elements that make it D&D,

Adding Slippery Slope to the fallacy list.

[diplomancer]

If it's a problem that a Half-Orc can't have the same stats as an Elf, than it is a problem that it can't have the same stats as a Mountain Dwarf, or a Half-Elf, or a regular Human, or a Triton, or Custom Lineage, or any of the new races with a +1,+1,+1 option. Do you ban all the races that don't give a +2,+1, so as not to make the +2,+1 races feel bad?

[Reynaert]

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.

Why specifically an elf adventurer?

[Rukelnikov]

If it's a problem that a Half-Orc can't have the same stats as an Elf, than it is a problem that it can't have the same stats as a Mountain Dwarf, or a Half-Elf, or a regular Human, or a Triton, or Custom Lineage, or any of the new races with a +1,+1,+1 option. Do you ban all the races that don't give a +2,+1, so as not to make the +2,+1 races feel bad?

This is what I thought @Segev was gonna go for after he asked @Psyren if they needed to be the exact same stats

[Segev]

I don't.

Obviously. That is the nature of disagreement.

All I can do is cite the designers of the game you're playing. If their own words can't convince you then yeah, I won't be able to either.

Citing that the ingredients to make the blue dye for an M&M are different than the ingredients for the red dye for an M&M likewise does not convince me they taste different, even if you're citing them from the Mars Company's own source material.

Adding Slippery Slope to the fallacy list.

It's only a fallacy if you can successfully draw a line to prove that's where it stops, and that previous lines so drawn have not already been crossed. I have explained exactly why the line you've drawn is not only insufficient, but backwards in terms of the criteria you laid out. You disagree, and I do not find your basis for disagreement to be self-consistent. But obviously, you do, or you wouldn't hold to it.

We shall see how things progress from here. I find it not to be promising.

[neonchameleon]

It does.

Not sure why you're okay with a half-orc adventurer not being able to have all the same abilities as an elf adventurer from the get-go, then. It seems inconsistent to me; a distinction drawn entirely arbitrarily. I know you've said otherwise; I do not find your assertions convincing, in the same way that somebody telling me that a blue M&M tastes better than a red M&M does not convince me that they taste any different at all.

It's only as "arbitrary" as to hit bonuses, damage bonuses, and saving throw DCs. Fundamentally the level of competence expected of an adventurer, as shown by WotC in literally all their pregens is a 16 in their primary stat. If 16 is the benchmark WotC are holding up or even the de facto standard then all races should be able to reach it.

There are other approaches that would work including stat bonuses for your class that flex if they double up on your racial stat bonuses (13th Age) or less importance on stats (oD&D). But all races should be able to reach the expected benchmarks under the standard array and point buy.

[Segev]

It's only as "arbitrary" as to hit bonuses, damage bonuses, and saving throw DCs. Fundamentally the level of competence expected of an adventurer, as shown by WotC in literally all their pregens is a 16 in their primary stat. If 16 is the benchmark WotC are holding up or even the de facto standard then all races should be able to reach it.

There are other approaches that would work including stat bonuses for your class that flex if they double up on your racial stat bonuses (13th Age) or less importance on stats (oD&D). But all races should be able to reach the expected benchmarks under the standard array and point buy.

Even if so, that's not the standard that Psyren is insisting on. Psyren is insisting that all stats must be (able to be) equal for every adventurer, regardless of race. Simply using dice rolls or increasing point allowance for point-buy and upping the table to allow buying 16s would accomplish what you've laid out. I disagree and think a 14 is perfectly viable, but am not insistent that nobody should start higher than 15 without a synergistic race.

The trouble is, you can achieve 16-availability without throwing out significant chunks of racial uniqueness. But Psyren is horribly offended if the floor for certain stats is higher in one race than another, and it thus is "more expensive" to get that 16 because you can't have ALL your stats be exactly the same as a member of another race's, even if you both have 16s in the "best" stat for your build.

[MThurston]

1. Breaks classes. Ie Fighting Style

2. Give stat bonus on feats like candy.

This alone breaks the game. No thank you.

[Segev]

1. Breaks classes. Ie Fighting Style

2. Give stat bonus on feats like candy.

This alone breaks the game. No thank you.

I actually disagree that the classes are broken. The stat bonus on feats is arguable, and I'd be interested in discussing it further, but I first am curious: what about the fighting styles is so broken, to you?

[OldTrees1]

I actually disagree that the classes are broken. The stat bonus on feats is arguable, and I'd be interested in discussing it further, but I first am curious: what about the fighting styles is so broken, to you?

I too am curious:
1) Is it the multiclass fighting styles (Cantrips for Paladin/Ranger or Battle Master manuevers)
2) Is it a very tempting option like Blind Fighting's Blindsight?
3) Did something mechanically snap?

[neonchameleon]

Even if so, that's not the standard that Psyren is insisting on. Psyren is insisting that all stats must be (able to be) equal for every adventurer, regardless of race. Simply using dice rolls or increasing point allowance for point-buy and upping the table to allow buying 16s would accomplish what you've laid out. I disagree and think a 14 is perfectly viable, but am not insistent that nobody should start higher than 15 without a synergistic race.

The trouble is, you can achieve 16-availability without throwing out significant chunks of racial uniqueness. But Psyren is horribly offended if the floor for certain stats is higher in one race than another, and it thus is "more expensive" to get that 16 because you can't have ALL your stats be exactly the same as a member of another race's, even if you both have 16s in the "best" stat for your build.

The thing is that where you see stat bonuses as racial uniqueness I see them as just fiddly with no real benefit. You get +1 on some die rolls. W00t! That to me makes literally no difference for NPCs as I'm not looking directly at their stats when I'm a player or a DM. I'm looking at what they are actually doing. Abilities make for a meaningful difference as orcs charge in whereas goblins dodge around - but stats don't because you get the situation where a lucky goblin ends up looking like an orc - while an unlucky orc is meaningfully no different from a goblin.

The only time I find small stat modifiers make a meaningful difference is for PCs because they are going to be rolling so many times. I do not see there being a single thing of value lost - or much that should worry most DMs.

[Psyren]

This is what I thought @Segev was gonna go for after he asked @Psyren if they needed to be the exact same stats

I'm okay with MD and HE being realigned with the +2/+1 (+1/+1/+1) floating paradigm. Human too, provided they get something to compensate.

Why specifically an elf adventurer?

No, not specifically Are you honestly wanting me to list all 30+ 1st-party races in every post? That'd be a bit much.

Citing that the ingredients to make the blue dye for an M&M are different than the ingredients for the red dye for an M&M likewise does not convince me they taste different, even if you're citing them from the Mars Company's own source material.

I mean, to use your analogy - the chemicals in those dyes might very well taste different, by which I mean interact with taste receptors differently. That you may not notice there's a difference is not chemistry's fault

It's only a fallacy if you can successfully draw a line to prove that's where it stops,

Actually no, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that changing ASIs means they plan to strip out every other racial difference. "This one change means we'll continue sliding down the slope unless you prove we won't" is the fallacy.

[MadBear]

See, creating hard caps is actually WORSE than the situation you're decrying as "feeling bad."

could you elaborate?

[Segev]

Actually no, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that changing ASIs means they plan to strip out every other racial difference. "This one change means we'll continue sliding down the slope unless you prove we won't" is the fallacy.

Funny, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one who's supporting the change.

And given that the impetus for the change is one we can't discuss here, I can only encourage you to investigate the track record of changes made for that purpose elsewhere.

Well, no, I can again point out that your logic for why ripping out fixed racial ASIs is absolutely essential but it's no big deal for more insurmountable differences that enforce racial archetypes is absolutely backwards, given the problem ostensibly being solved. ...actually, given ALL problems ostensibly being solved, both that we CAN (and have, at length) discussed here, and cannot.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Funny, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one who's supporting the change.

And given that the impetus for the change is one we can't discuss here, I can only encourage you to investigate the track record of changes made for that purpose elsewhere.

Well, no, I can again point out that your logic for why ripping out fixed racial ASIs is absolutely essential but it's no big deal for more insurmountable differences that enforce racial archetypes is absolutely backwards, given the problem ostensibly being solved. ...actually, given ALL problems ostensibly being solved, both that we CAN (and have, at length) discussed here, and cannot.

If you make a statement "removing racial ASI is just the first step to removing all of the elements that make DND unique" then I think calling that out as a slippery slope is fair.

Correct me if I'm wrong, my experience of previous editions is limited, but if we compare the original edition (which is a fair metric of what DND it's meant to express) to the current edition I'm willing to bet the amount of similarities are relatively small.

Though at this point I'm willing to bet that there have been complaints at every point that the game had received these types of changes, like when Elf became a race and not a class or when ability score caps were removed. Were those just one step into erasing what makes DND unique or a step into a new direction for DND? Whether they were positive changes is up to your own point of view but your own view on the matter doesn't decide the general consensus.

[Psyren]

Funny, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one who's supporting the change.

The change (removal of fixed ASIs) has occurred. It's done. You are - fallaciously - assuming that that one removal will likely/inevitably mean more removals of non-ASI racials down the line, despite WotC having made no comments on those other racials, and newer races like Harengon and the FizDragonborn indeed having more than ever.

I do expect humans at least to get something to compensate for floating not being an advantage specific to them anymore, and I wouldn't mind a couple of other tweaks like Savage Attacks being allowed to apply to spells too, but those would be buffs/additions.

Well, no, I can again point out that your logic for why ripping out fixed racial ASIs is absolutely essential but it's no big deal for more insurmountable differences that enforce racial archetypes is absolutely backwards, given the problem ostensibly being solved. ...actually, given ALL problems ostensibly being solved, both that we CAN (and have, at length) discussed here, and cannot.

Where did I say "absolutely essential?"

If you make a statement "removing racial ASI is just the first step to removing all of the elements that make DND unique" then I think calling that out as a slippery slope is fair.

Correct me if I'm wrong, my experience of previous editions is limited, but if we compare the original edition (which is a fair metric of what DND it's meant to express) to the current edition I'm willing to bet the amount of similarities are relatively small.

Though at this point I'm willing to bet that there have been complaints at every point that the game had received these types of changes, like when Elf became a race and not a class or when ability score caps were removed. Were those just one step into erasing what makes DND unique or a step into a new direction for DND? Whether they were positive changes is up to your own point of view but your own view on the matter doesn't decide the general consensus.

Indeed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The change (removal of fixed ASIs) has occurred. It's done.

I'll say that this bait-and-switch, fait accompli attitude (no, it's totally optional, don't worry, not changing anything core...now it's done and you can't go back unless you redo all the work we just tore out and don't use any of the new stuff that relies on it!) is one of the reasons the whole thing leaves a really really bad taste in my mouth. Fundamentally, the devs lied. In print. To our faces. They claimed it was optional, and then enforced it through intentional neglect. That's bad faith. And that breaks the trust between devs and players and especially DMs. Regardless of the intrinsic wisdom (or not) of the change, this was a bad way of doing it.

[MThurston]

I actually disagree that the classes are broken. The stat bonus on feats is arguable, and I'd be interested in discussing it further, but I first am curious: what about the fighting styles is so broken, to you?

You can disagree all you want to but then being a fighter, ranger, or Paladin means your fighting style can be feated then its a bs rule.

Barbarians don't get a Fighting style and Paladins don't get the same as the others. So you break the game by not making this a class ability.

Hexblade with a bow as their pact weapon gets archery without dipping into fighter.

[Segev]

You can disagree all you want to but then being a fighter, ranger, or Paladin means your fighting style can be feated then its a bs rule.

Barbarians don't get a Fighting style and Paladins don't get the same as the others. So you break the game by not making this a class ability.

Hexblade with a bow as their pact weapon gets archery without dipping into fighter.

Eh, if you really want to let Ranger and Paladin fighting styles be "feated," it's not hard now that the general "a fighting style is worth a feat" principle is established.

Hexblade can already do better than archery with eldritch blast if he wants. It's not breaking anything to let him do it differently.

Feats are optional, anyway, even if we treat them otherwise. And frankly, a feat is a heavier investment than a class level.

[MadBear]

Funny, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the one who's supporting the change.

You're conflating two separate issues.

1. Are these new changes good: Yes, if Psyren supports them he has the burden of proof to defend why they're good, if he thinks so and want to convince others.

2. Changes to ASI will lead to racial ability changes: That is a claim you've made in response to his argument. That's a separate claim, and as such, would require you to have the burden of proof in order to demonstrate that is the case.


Put another way, if we have a situation where we have:

Person A: I like _________ and the reasons I like ___________ are _____________
Person B: I don't like _____________ and the consequences of _________ will be _________


Person A does have the burden of proof to support the original claim, but if we want to accept Person B's consequence, they need to demonstrate that. They've essentially taken on the burden of proof, at least so far as, they need to demonstrate that before we can accept it as a valid reason of concern.

[KorvinStarmast]

It sure "feels bad" to me for my halfling who rides a pteradon to be unable to use heavy weapons; why should I be so restricted?

And it feels bad to me that he uses a heavy weapon without penalty, so where are we now? A certain level of verisimilitude is useful even in fairie stories, and the balance between First World and Second world is a tricky line to walk.

[Amnestic]

And it feels bad to me that he uses a heavy weapon without penalty, so where are we now? A certain level of verisimilitude is useful even in fairie stories, and the balance between First World and Second world is a tricky line to walk.

Not sure I'd call the Heavy category of weapons verisimilitude when an 8 strength 10' tall goliath can fire a heavy crossbow better than a 2' tall 20 strength kobold, but then they both have 14 dex and use the exact same hand crossbow with equal proficiency, one-handed.

Weapons magically resizing to perfectly fit in the hands of whomever holds them is already an aspect of 5e, yet some weapons apparently are not subject to this magical resizing. Maybe if Medium creatures were suddenly too bulky to utilise finesse weapons we'd see more flexibility from people on it.

"oh but your DM can say the weapons aren't the right size" - they can, but that's not RAW. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. What fits in the hand of a 2' kobold fits in the hand of a 10' goliath and deals exactly the same damage, assuming identical stats.