Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[KorvinStarmast]

1) If they make a new race later - let's say, I dunno, something called a "Half-Giant" - and you tell your players "I know the standard now is floating ASIs, but in this campaign, Half-Giants all get a bonus to Strength" - are your players really going to throw a tantrum over that? And if they are, I don't have much to say other than strongly suggesting you find more reasonable players.

As I noted a few posts back, there isn't a shortage of players, but the shortage of DMs seems to be happening in this edition ... but that may vary with location.

2) As I noted previously, I'm perfectly fine with dragonborn having floating ASIs, they always should have. Same with Warforged - instead of needing to come up with a bunch of silly justifications like "ooh this one's a scout model" and "this one's reforged" and "this one's a juggernaut" you can just... have the bonuses you want and make your body type and attitude comport to that.

While I am not a fan of warforged as a PC option, the point you make about their customizability is an excellent one, genre/setting wise. Also agree with dragonborn point because, I mean, Dragons!

Ideas:
Fighter: +2 ST/DX and +1 CO
Barbarian: +2 ST and +1 DX/CO
Paladin: +2 ST and +1 CH or +1 ST and +2 CH
Wizard: +2 IN and +1 DX
Cleric: +2 WI and +1 ST

FWIW, 13th Age did something like this, but it went like "get a +2 for X race in either attribute X or Attribute Y, and get a +2 for your class in either attribute A or attribute B. (A, B, X and Y may have some overlap depending on which race and which class one chose.

Instead WotC has chosen to favor only Tasha's floating ASI rules. Tables which do not wish to use these "optional" rules must choose: disallow newer races, or create their own fixed ASIs for these races, or hold players to different standards based on whether they use pre-Tasha's or post-Tasha's races.

Which puts DMs in an awkward position, or rather, requires a bit more work up front on "this is how the campaign works" during their pitch/setting document.

Personally, I disagree with you regarding PHB Dragonborn. Given the design parameters in place at the time of the PHB, I think the PHB was absolutely correct to give Dragonborn fixed ASIs. I do think WotC probably should have split them into metallic and chromatic subraces with slightly different ASIs, but I wouldn't expect them to have completely floating ASIs.

I don't see a need for the sub races, but that's a matter of taste. The ones in Fizban I can live with.

WotC has given tables which prefer fixed ASIs no guidance on the matter. They didn't really leave "don't use Tasha's optional rules" as a viable option. The original topic of this thread asks why people don't like Tasha's. My biggest complaint is not that Tasha's introduced the concept of letting all races use floating ASIs; my biggest complaint is that calling that concept "optional" was at best a half-truth. If they weren't going to support not using that option going forward, they should have just come out and made it a straight-up change.

Nicely put, thanks for articulating that.

It is good to remember there is a lot of inertia against house ruling. The status quo, including official variants, tends to enjoy a privileged status compared to house rules. House ruling is not a dirty word, but it is easier to use an official variant than it is to propose a house rule.

House rules vary widely in their quality.

That's because eventually - inevitably - power creep set in.
Very similar to what's happened with Tasha's.
PHB was a thing that existed, it plodded along...
Oh ****, here comes SCAG,
Oh ****, here comes Xanathar's,
Oh ****, here comes Tasha's.
Eventually - inevitably - power creep sets it...And then the creep becomes rot. And the whole system has to be reset.
{snip} Because there always has to be a next product that is designed to be bought. And if it's designed to be bought, players will expect to be able to use it.

I think Xanathar's added a mistake to the game: hexblade warlock patron. (I also was bummed that Arcana Cleric didn't make the Xanathar's cut).

I'll be honest, I think Tasha's is the first solid example of major Powercreep in 5e.

It's a blatant case of power creep, although the Xanathar's Rangers were a boost.

SCAG: Had some fun options. The only standout things here are the Blade cantrips, but even then they only work really well with super specific builds. Everything else is average/on par with the PHB...or weaker than the PHB options in the case of the poor Battlerager.

And the poor Purple Dragon Knight. It's a nice example of "what might have been" that didn't come off that well.

The spell list bloat was (to me) unwelcome, although there are a few (Sickening Radiance) that I appreciate as a Celestial Warlock.

Tasha's: The first real form of Powercreep I've seen in 5e.
Artificer as a class is unbalanced.
It either sucks, or it breaks the game, depending on the skill of the player using it.

I no longer allow them as a DM. I am glad that those who like them enjoy them.

As to power creep: the items that give +1, +2 and +3 to casting classes are a nasty case of boosting spell casters ... who really don't need a boost. Leave that +1, +2, +3 thing with warlocks (rod of the pact keeper).

I mean, minionmancy is insanely strong no matter your edition...or game really. There's a reason Zerg rushing was a thing.

Yep.

I’m playing the villains already, killing the players’ celestial puppy, setting fire to their ship that has become a floating orphanage. If they’re going to strongly disagree we will find common ground in session 0. If they’re going to draw a line in the sand I’ll kindly direct them to RPG.net so they can find social validation.

Or get flamed.

But yes, for GMs that don’t have the confidence or experience to be asserting changes to the system’s baseline the absence of guidance on racial ASIs (and MANY other things) is disappointing.

Good point. Beginner DMs are being hung out to dry, again.

[Stangler]

But no, they went with the min-max solution and decided bonuses for everyone (presumably in the hope the powergamers would drown out the complaints of those who disliked them bowing to facebook-activist pressure). And that only makes the change sit worse with people who dislike the change, because it's taken the easy way out and catered to the munchkin in the room, rather than taking a serious re-assessment.

I think the biggest winners are new players who can now choose the race and class combo they want. I have introduced the game to a fair number of new players and one of the most important aspects of teaching them the game is getting them personally invested in their race and class choice. They are pretty much the opposite of a power gamer and know nothing of facebook activism but this change is something I already homebrewed because it is such an obvious necessity.

One of the bigger weaknesses in 5e is bland race designs that relied on rigid ASI distributions to create differences between the races. Tasha's doesn't fix the blandness but it does make the game less rigid. I have yet to really read or see an argument that justifies rigid ASI distribution that doesn't boil down to a desire for better race design or a subjective desire for rigid attribute race combos.

[Xervous]

Or get flamed.

It’s RPG.net, half of us here would be banned for posts we made in this topic. I’m certain there’d be many a shoulder offered for crying on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll put in a plug for my "if I were king of D&D" solution:

1. Races only include purely biological elements. Which yes, can include some ASIs, probably entirely physical ones. But don't need to.
2. Instead of sub-races, give cultures. These would contain the remaining elements, especially the proficiencies. Cultures then could be added in generic books, in setting-specific books, etc. And most of the meat would be here. In principle, you could even mix and match--you could say you were a human (race) who was raised in the ABC culture (normally considered an elven culture).
3. In the DMG, give good clear examples and guidelines for creating new cultures to match your setting.

So a half-orc might get the Relentless Endurance and +1 STR from the race, along with darkvision. But then they could choose the ABC[1] culture, granting them +2 INT, Arcana proficiency, and a wizard cantrip, along with the Sage background and be a (relatively rare) half-orc wizard.

[1] Naming things is one of the Hard Problems.

[t209]

WFRP has both (and both Agility and Dexterity).

I mean for weapon attack attribute.

[KorvinStarmast]

[1] Naming things is one of the Hard Problems.

WoTC had trouble with naming things like attack and target. Culture might be well out of their wheelhouse.

[Psyren]

I agree that house rule is not a dirty word. Tables should house rule whatever they want to house rule. But house ruling should not be required to play what is presented as the default way to play the game. How is it "overblown" to ask WotC to treat what they call an optional rule as actually optional rather than mandatory?

And yet again, the matter of how obvious a racial ASI is or whether a floating ASI makes sense for a given race is irrelevant. The issue is the fact that WotC is failing to provide the information. If anything, your claim that the ASIs should be obvious makes WotC's failure to include them even more egregious.

...

My point is that they should not need to come to an accord. WotC should provide this information. If they did, the only question would be "does our table want to use the optional rules from Tasha's for racial ASIs or not." Instead we have an additional question, "if not, what do we do about these new races."

Do we let them have floating ASIs anyway, giving them a distinct mechanical advantage over older races? Doing so doesn't seem fair to anybody who wants to play an older race.

Do we totally disallow them? Doing so seems even more unfair to the players who find them interesting.

Do we come up with our own fixed ASIs for them, which may not match what you'd get at another table? If so, why are we having to come up with those ASIs instead of being provided them by WotC?

Obviously, we could avoid these questions by just using Tasha's "optional" rule. Which brings us right about around to my original complaint. WotC claimed the floating ASI rule was optional, but are treating it as mandatory.

If this is truly an immutable policy change on their part, frankly, you'll just have to find a way to deal with it. Ultimately, I can understand why they as a company might want to get away from implying that PCs from this or that race start at a mental disadvantage relative to their peers, or need to fight an uphill battle to overcome some biological limitation on their intellect, and once they've come to that conclusion it's a short hop from there to saying "well, we might as well do the same with the physical ASIs too." The underlying reasons they might feel that way can't be discussed on this forum, so that's pretty much where we have to leave it.

I agree, it shouldn't be outlandish to tell your players that for a given campaign the table is not using the optional rules from Tasha's for racial ASIs. Unfortunately, the lack of any guidance from WotC on what ASIs to use for post-Tasha's races under the default rules makes using the default rules rather outlandish.

But it doesn't. If you want fixed ASIs, you have decades of tradition on your side, if the race itself being intuitive (like my Half-Giants example) somehow isn't enough. Not to mention, you know, being the DM and saying "this fits the world I've designed, here are the races I've allowed and their associated bonuses."

Sure, I can see an argument for Reborn having floating ASIs. And if there were a "typical ASIs" line in their rules, it could explain that Reborn covers a wide variety of possibilities and thus has floating ASIs even by the default rules. My argument is not that floating ASIs should never exist; my argument is that WotC should make it clear how races are intended to be played for everybody, including those at tables which choose not to use Tasha's "optional" rules.

Their "intended way to play" is that it's more desirable for them as a company to not mandate or even tip the scales toward such things. You are free to choose whether that's a deal-breaker or not.

As I noted a few posts back, there isn't a shortage of players, but the shortage of DMs seems to be happening in this edition ... but that may vary with location

All the easier to replace troublemakers

And DM shortages are a constant every edition honestly. Anecdotal, but if anything, I've heard more people willing to dip their toes into DMing now than I ever have in the past due to this being possibly the rules-lightest D&D ever made. Certainly I've seen more "fan" tables when I go to cons for this edition than I ever did for PF1 (and certainly more than PF2.)

While I am not a fan of warforged as a PC option, the point you make about their customizability is an excellent one, genre/setting wise. Also agree with dragonborn point because, I mean, Dragons!

May I ask why you're not a Warforged fan?

[KorvinStarmast]

May I ask why you're not a Warforged fan?

Like the artificer, it belongs in Eberron. To me, warforged are setting specific. (One of our parties had a warforged war domain cleric that fit the setting with a few DM tweaks, but warforged doesn't do it for me. Perhaps it's a 'feel' thing).

Someday, maybe, I'll come across a DM who is running an Eberron game when I am looking for a new game and I can enjoy Eberron for what it is in this edition. That might change my feel.

[OldTrees1]

I'll put in a plug for my "if I were king of D&D" solution:

1. Races only include purely biological elements. Which yes, can include some ASIs, probably entirely physical ones. But don't need to.
2. Instead of sub-races, give cultures. These would contain the remaining elements, especially the proficiencies. Cultures then could be added in generic books, in setting-specific books, etc. And most of the meat would be here. In principle, you could even mix and match--you could say you were a human (race) who was raised in the ABC culture (normally considered an elven culture).
3. In the DMG, give good clear examples and guidelines for creating new cultures to match your setting.

So a half-orc might get the Relentless Endurance and +1 STR from the race, along with darkvision. But then they could choose the ABC[1] culture, granting them +2 INT, Arcana proficiency, and a wizard cantrip, along with the Sage background and be a (relatively rare) half-orc wizard.

[1] Naming things is one of the Hard Problems.

Solid model.

It has a downside with species that have less biological elements (humans) or more biological elements (no PC options yet, but consider an Illithid as a placeholder example). That could be addressed by species with less biological elements gaining more cultural elements or more cultures. Maybe humans pick 2 cultures?

PS: ABC culture is a fine name. It sounds like an extremely orderly society that uses TLAs like TLA and has trouble communicting whether they meant the TLA ABC or other TLA ABC when they are talking.

Like the artificer, it belongs in Eberron. To me, warforged are setting specific. (One of our parties had a warforged war domain cleric that fit the setting with a few DM tweaks, but warforged doesn't do it for me. Perhaps it's a 'feel' thing).

Someday, maybe, I'll come across a DM who is running an Eberron game when I am looking for a new game and I can enjoy Eberron for what it is in this edition. That might change my feel.

Outside of Eberron I refluff Warforged as "Golem". You probably already thought of that, so it is unlikely to help.

[GooeyChewie]

If this is truly an immutable policy change on their part, frankly, you'll just have to find a way to deal with it. Ultimately, I can understand why they as a company might want to get away from implying that PCs from this or that race start at a mental disadvantage relative to their peers, or need to fight an uphill battle to overcome some biological limitation on their intellect, and once they've come to that conclusion it's a short hop from there to saying "well, we might as well do the same with the physical ASIs too." The underlying reasons they might feel that way can't be discussed on this forum, so that's pretty much where we have to leave it.

It is a stated policy change on their part at this point. My complaint is that they pretended in Tasha's that it was an optional rule that any given table could ignore if they so desired. If WotC wanted to not provide racial ASIs going forward, the rules in Tasha's should have been presented as the new default rather than as an optional rule.

But it doesn't. If you want fixed ASIs, you have decades of tradition on your side, if the race itself being intuitive (like my Half-Giants example) somehow isn't enough. Not to mention, you know, being the DM and saying "this fits the world I've designed, here are the races I've allowed and their associated bonuses."

Once again, the DM should not need to determine the associated bonuses, regardless of how "intuitive" you perceive them to be. In Tasha's, WotC presents playing with fixed ASIs as a valid and even default way of playing the game. For all races printed post-Tasha's, WotC has failed to provide the necessary game statistics to play in this fashion.

Their "intended way to play" is that it's more desirable for them as a company to not mandate or even tip the scales toward such things. You are free to choose whether that's a deal-breaker or not.

But they effectively have mandated that you cannot play with fixed ASIs, by virtue of flatly refusing to provide such ASIs. And I wouldn't have such a big problem with it if they hadn't presented floating ASIs as merely an "optional" rule in Tasha's.



For me and my table, we've been allowing newer races floating ASIs carte blanche and adjudicating older races on a case-by-case basis. I want to be very clear, WotC's failure to provide "typical" ASIs is not a deal-breaker for me. But WotC did obfuscate just how "optional" the rules in Tasha's would be going forward, and I'm not okay with them doing other tables wrong just because my table can handle it.

[Psyren]

Like the artificer, it belongs in Eberron. To me, warforged are setting specific. (One of our parties had a warforged war domain cleric that fit the setting with a few DM tweaks, but warforged doesn't do it for me. Perhaps it's a 'feel' thing).

Someday, maybe, I'll come across a DM who is running an Eberron game when I am looking for a new game and I can enjoy Eberron for what it is in this edition. That might change my feel.

Oh I thought you meant you didn't like them in general, not that you didn't want them in non-Eberron settings. I totally understand the latter, Warforged in general are pretty tied to Eberron's history.

With that said, Artificers in other settings make a lot of sense to me, like Lantan in Faerun or Mount Nevermind in Dragonlance undoubtedly have a decent number of artificers (predominantly gnomes of course but still). Golarion too would have a bunch between tech/science centers like Numeria and Alkenstar, or at least it would have the PF equivalent (Inventors and Investigators primarily.) No idea if there is an equivalent in settings like Greyhawk or Ravenloft but it seems likely.

EDIT:

It is a stated policy change on their part at this point. My complaint is that they pretended in Tasha's that it was an optional rule that any given table could ignore if they so desired. If WotC wanted to not provide racial ASIs going forward, the rules in Tasha's should have been presented as the new default rather than as an optional rule.
...
But they effectively have mandated that you cannot play with fixed ASIs, by virtue of flatly refusing to provide such ASIs. And I wouldn't have such a big problem with it if they hadn't presented floating ASIs as merely an "optional" rule in Tasha's.

Given that Tasha's itself is optional, it would be pretty weird of them to state a sweeping policy change there as opposed to where they did do it (i.e. Sage Advice)

"Optional book presents its content as optional, news at 11?"

Once again, the DM should not need to determine the associated bonuses, regardless of how "intuitive" you perceive them to be. In Tasha's, WotC presents playing with fixed ASIs as a valid and even default way of playing the game. For all races printed post-Tasha's, WotC has failed to provide the necessary game statistics to play in this fashion.

I would turn that around and say that WotC does not need to provide them. They are under no obligation to give races bonuses of any kind, least of all ability scores, save for the fact that that would disadvantage any new races relative to the existing ones and make them less desirable, so all the new ones get floaters instead.

For me and my table, we've been allowing newer races floating ASIs carte blanche and adjudicating older races on a case-by-case basis. I want to be very clear, WotC's failure to provide "typical" ASIs is not a deal-breaker for me. But WotC did obfuscate just how "optional" the rules in Tasha's would be going forward, and I'm not okay with them doing other tables wrong just because my table can handle it.

See first reply.

[Amnestic]

Oh I thought you meant you didn't like them in general, not that you didn't want them in non-Eberron settings. I totally understand the latter, Warforged in general are pretty tied to Eberron's history.

With that said, Artificers in other settings make a lot of sense to me, like Lantan in Faerun or Mount Nevermind in Dragonlance undoubtedly have a decent number of artificers (predominantly gnomes of course but still). Golarion too would have a bunch between tech/science centers like Numeria and Alkenstar, or at least it would have the PF equivalent (Inventors and Investigators primarily.) No idea if there is an equivalent in settings like Greyhawk or Ravenloft but it seems likely.

If your setting has:
Magic armour
Golems
Potions
Magic wands

Then artificers will probably fit in your setting, since that's what the 4 subclasses are all about.

You don't need any 'tech' for an artificer, at all. Their base mechanics are using spells and magically enchanting items, and that's it.

[Psyren]

If your setting has:
Magic armour
Golems
Potions
Magic wands

Then artificers will probably fit in your setting, since that's what the 4 subclasses are all about.

You don't need any 'tech' for an artificer, at all. Their base mechanics are using spells and magically enchanting items, and that's it.

Right right, agreed - just pointing out that even if you lean into some of the tech-ier/clockwork magic flavor, most of the published settings have a dedicated place for that too.

[GooeyChewie]

Given that Tasha's itself is optional, it would be pretty weird of them to state a sweeping policy change there as opposed to where they did do it (i.e. Sage Advice)

"Optional book presents its content as optional, news at 11?"

WotC disguised a sweeping policy change as optional content and presented it in an optional book, then shortly later (before printing any other new races) revealed that the supposedly optional content was a sweeping policy change all along and that not using the "optional" content would no longer be supported. Yes, I agree that it was pretty freakin' weird.

I would turn that around and say that WotC does not need to provide them. They are under no obligation to give races bonuses of any kind, least of all ability scores, save for the fact that that would disadvantage any new races relative to the existing ones and make them less desirable, so all the new ones get floaters instead.

If WotC wants their product to facilitate both using the optional rules in Tasha's and not using the optional rules in Tasha's, then they do in fact need to provide the information to play both ways. WotC has chosen only to provide the information necessary to play one way (with the optional rules). And yet again, I would be okay with them doing so if they had not presented what turned out to be a sweeping policy change as though it were an optional rule.


Let me ask you this. Why do you oppose the notion of adding typical ability score improvements to new races? In what way would they impede (or indeed, even affect) any table which uses floating ASIs? I'm advocating for something you could ignore completely but that others would find useful. Why would you oppose such a thing?

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, the 'optional' thing from Tasha's crops up in the dragonborn Fizban section.

[Psyren]

WotC disguised a sweeping policy change as optional content and presented it in an optional book, then shortly later (before printing any other new races) revealed that the supposedly optional content was a sweeping policy change all along and that not using the "optional" content would no longer be supported. Yes, I agree that it was pretty freakin' weird.

Not as weird as just announcing it online would have been. By putting it in Tasha's first, they (a) get the audience/engagement that focuses more on book releases than website articles, and (b) were able to get empirical data on the impact it has in real games - which is to say, "probably not much," given their subsequent pronouncement.

If WotC wants their product to facilitate both using the optional rules in Tasha's and not using the optional rules in Tasha's, then they do in fact need to provide the information to play both ways. WotC has chosen only to provide the information necessary to play one way (with the optional rules). And yet again, I would be okay with them doing so if they had not presented what turned out to be a sweeping policy change as though it were an optional rule.

You do have the information you need to play the other way though. Either it's obvious for the race in question (in which case, do that), or it isn't (in which case, floating was probably better anyway so there's no issue.)

Let me ask you this. Why do you oppose the notion of adding typical ability score improvements to new races? In what way would they impede (or indeed, even affect) any table which uses floating ASIs? I'm advocating for something you could ignore completely but that others would find useful. Why would you oppose such a thing?

I don't oppose that, I simply don't care enough one way or the other to raise a fuss over it. For the reason above (we have what we need) I consider the impact to be minimal.

[TyGuy]

It takes zero effort to apply Tasha ASI rules to a race that has suggested racial ASI.
It takes effort, negligible or not, to personally come up with racial ASI for new races.

Prior to TCoE people could do floating ASI or homebrew, they didn't need permission. After TCoE people can homebrew and apply racial ASI, they don't need permission. The books have never been a way for WoTC to dictate how people play at home. They exist to inspire, guide, provide options, and shorten prep time. The new take on ASI free races fails at all four of those.

[qube]

It takes zero effort to apply Tasha ASI rules to a race that has suggested racial ASI.
It takes effort, negligible or not, to personally come up with racial ASI for new races.

Prior to TCoE people could do floating ASI or homebrew, they didn't need permission. After TCoE people can homebrew and apply racial ASI, they don't need permission. The books have never been a way for WoTC to dictate how people play at home. They exist to inspire, guide, provide options, and shorten prep time. The new take on ASI free races fails at all four of those.

I couldn't have said it better myself

[Psyren]

The books also exist to convey designer intent and implication for their game. And if the designers want to get away from implying things about fantasy races through specific ASIs, this is pretty much the only way to do that. While it's true that the design going forward is stronger than a mere option, their intent behind the changes as laid out in their June 2020 blog post (which I won't link here) was abundantly clear.

[diplomancer]

I would turn that around and say that WotC does not need to provide them. They are under no obligation to give races bonuses of any kind, least of all ability scores, save for the fact that that would disadvantage any new races relative to the existing ones and make them less desirable, so all the new ones get floaters instead

This gave me an idea. Instead of floating ASI's for new races, why not NO ASI's? Just give them more features to balance it out.

[Psyren]

This gave me an idea. Instead of floating ASI's for new races, why not NO ASI's? Just give them more features to balance it out.

I have little doubt this is where the game is headed eventually. Just increase the PB, eliminate ASIs entirely, and more qualitative features like elf's free Perception proficiency.

[Zhorn]

I have little doubt this is where the game is headed eventually. Just increase the PB, eliminate ASIs entirely, and more qualitative features like elf's free Perception proficiency.

Or don't increase the point buy and just cut. There are already a ton of ways for characters to get more powerful as they level. Starting low with room to grow works fine.


A big reason as to why I've referred to this as 'powergaming rubbish' is this obsession with pushing the assumption of character power needing to be higher and higher from level 1 just to be viable.
This is what gives people the false idea that certain race/class/background combinations were not viable.
Starting with high stats at level 1 was never required.

[Psyren]

Or don't increase the point buy and just cut. There are already a ton of ways for characters to get more powerful as they level. Starting low with room to grow works fine.

The game is already balanced around people being able to easily start with an 18 (or two 16s) - I say just lean into it.

A big reason as to why I've referred to this as 'powergaming rubbish' is this obsession with pushing the assumption of character power needing to be higher and higher from level 1 just to be viable.
This is what gives people the false idea that certain race/class/background combinations were not viable.
Starting with high stats at level 1 was never required.

I don't think anyone believes it to be required per se. But again, game design is about evoking feelings and experiences, and starting with an 18 in your primary stat just feels far better than starting with a 16, which in turn feels far better than a 14, even if the mathematical difference is tiny at the end of the day.

[Amechra]

In my current game, I dropped racial ability scores entirely. Instead, I bumped the 15 in the standard array to 16, and gave everyone a free ASI that they could spend on whatever they wanted.

It comes out to basically the same, honestly.

[Dienekes]

If your setting has:
Magic armour
Golems
Potions
Magic wands

Then artificers will probably fit in your setting, since that's what the 4 subclasses are all about.

You don't need any 'tech' for an artificer, at all. Their base mechanics are using spells and magically enchanting items, and that's it.

In fairness here, I allow artificers (though no one has played one) but I don't really like them in game. My setting has magic items as rare and terrible. Artificers exist, but they're like Sauron pouring their malice into a ring of power, or dwarves hammering at their forges to craft an armor enchanted by their skill.

I enjoy that more mystical and lost magic style of world, that the artificer really doesn't do well.

Mind you 5e in general doesn't do it well, but it's the game my players wanted to play, and so far I've made it work.

[Psyren]

In fairness here, I allow artificers (though no one has played one) but I don't really like them in game. My setting has magic items as rare and terrible. Artificers exist, but they're like Sauron pouring their malice into a ring of power, or dwarves hammering at their forges to craft an armor enchanted by their skill.

I enjoy that more mystical and lost magic style of world, that the artificer really doesn't do well.

Mind you 5e in general doesn't do it well, but it's the game my players wanted to play, and so far I've made it work.

One way to handle this would be to nerf infusions. Instead of them lasting indefinitely, the artificer might only be able to empower items for an hour or two per long rest. They can thus hand out a magic sword before a tough fight if they think that's the one they'll need it for that day, but not just give the party reliable access to such a weapon long-term. You could also ban infusions like Replicate Item - no Bag of Holding or Lantern of Revealing or Cap of Water Breathing etc.

[Zhorn]

The game is already balanced around people being able to easily start with an 18 (or two 16s) - I say just lean into it.

'Being able to start at' vs 'needing to start at' are two VERY different statements. Your talking about the former, I'm talking about the later.
I don't lean into it because I see it as part of the bigger problem of power creep. The more you normalize low level characters having a higher baseline of power, any value below that comes to be seen as 'bad' despite such characters still having the odds of winning in their favour when facing anything of appropriate CR.
I'm not against high stats, I'm against the perception shift of a +3 being seen as bad instead of anything less that a 0 being bad.
Powercreep is not good for the game. All it serves to do is trivialize large swathes of the low power content and disconnect characters from the worlds they come from

I don't think anyone believes it to be required per se. But again, game design is about evoking feelings and experiences, and starting with an 18 in your primary stat just feels far better than starting with a 16, which in turn feels far better than a 14, even if the mathematical difference is tiny at the end of the day.

I don't think anyone believes starting with a magic weapon to be required per se. But starting with a vorpal sword just feels far better than starting with a +2 sword, which in turn feels far better than a regular weapon.
Joking aside, it is the same argument. Bigger numbers are more powerful than smaller numbers isn't news to anyone, and being more powerful than those around you is a core part of power fantasy. But that doesn't mean you should start at level one already overpowering everyone else. Room to grow is what give the power component of the power fantasy meaning and perspective.
And if you want to start off a game more powerful facing bigger threats, just start at a high level.

[Psyren]

'Being able to start at' vs 'needing to start at' are two VERY different statements. Your talking about the former, I'm talking about the later.
I don't lean into it because I see it as part of the bigger problem of power creep. The more you normalize low level characters having a higher baseline of power, any value below that comes to be seen as 'bad' despite such characters still having the odds of winning in their favour when facing anything of appropriate CR.
I'm not against high stats, I'm against the perception shift of a +3 being seen as bad instead of anything less that a 0 being bad.
Powercreep is not good for the game. All it serves to do is trivialize large swathes of the low power content and disconnect characters from the worlds they come from

I think "starting with +3 or higher in your main stat is good, +4 or +5 are great if you can get it" has been standard since 3e, if not 2e. I don't see how maintaining that standard qualifies as "power creep."

I don't think anyone believes starting with a magic weapon to be required per se. But starting with a vorpal sword just feels far better than starting with a +2 sword, which in turn feels far better than a regular weapon.
Joking aside, it is the same argument.

No, it's not the same at all. Trivializing encounters and breaking wealth just make the game boring, unless you're explicitly going for a monty haul campaign or something. Starting with an 18 is not at all the same thing as starting the game with a vorpal sword, that's absurdist.

[Cheesegear]

Powercreep is not good for the game. All it serves to do is trivialize large swathes of the low power content and disconnect characters from the worlds they come from

Once of my players once critted a Commoner for max damage with an Unarmed Strike, and was shocked - shocked - to learn that she'd killed the Commoner in one hit, with an Unarmed Strike. That's when she learned that Commoners only have 4 HP, and so even 8 damage counts for Massive Damage, and that's only just then when the party at that table learned how actually powerful Level 1 characters are in relation to the world - especially when they start with a 16 in Str.

But that doesn't mean you should start at level one already overpowering everyone else. Room to grow is what give the power component of the power fantasy meaning and perspective.

You already do.

I've said it once and I'll say it again; Background + Class gives too much starting gear with too much freedom to just pick all the best stuff. When you start the game with a Greatsword, there's nothing to work towards. You already have the best item you want, and now the only thing that gives your character meaning is finding a magical Greatsword, and then an even more magical one after that, etc.

Over time you lose track of the fiction of the world. You start the game with a Greatsword, at Level 1. So obviously Greatswords aren't even that good. Then you punch a Commoner when you have 16 Str, crit, deal 8 damage, kill the Commoner outright - even if you do say 'non-lethal damage', it still counts as Massive Damage - and you complain to the DM that you're unarmed, like that should change things. How does 8 damage even kill someone? because nearly a decade into the game you've been gaslit that 'Level 1 isn't even good, a 2d6 damage Greatsword is only the baseline for what you need to be good.'

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think "starting with +3 or higher in your main stat is good, +4 or +5 are great if you can get it" has been standard since 3e, if not 2e. I don't see how maintaining that standard qualifies as "power creep."

Because 3e and 2e were different games? Standards, especially mechanical ones, don't translate at all. It was standard to have a main stat in the 30s in 3e.

----

In my opinion, the only sane, objective baseline is the one the game gives you. Which is the CR standard. And yes, that's an incredibly forgiving, easy-to-hit baseline. By intent.