Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[Salmon343]

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.



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

Ah, great. It looks like it makes it a lot better from a character building standpoint, which is good. I reckon it works because we've reduced its impact from a pseudo min-maxing perspective - using a flat +2 to increase a 14 to 16 is a total value of 5 points (assuming point buy extension of 16 = 12), so reducing that to 2 points makes race selection have a smaller impact. If you wanted to keep race specific stat bonuses, then this is a good way to go about it, I think.

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.

I think context is key here - there's a significant difference between inherited intelligence in science fiction, and in high fantasy. If we look at AI for example, or the futuristic idea of incredibly intelligent androids, or the dystopian idea of genetic editing to create a smarter, wealthy class - the reasoning is spelled out in a way which avoids the problematic parallels with real-world discrimination. When the comparison is overt, its frequently treated as a negative thing inherent in a dystopia - while androids / AI are created and are convincingly alien from humanity, so the parallel is avoided.

The problem is that fantasy races don't really feel like they're different species - they're more like different flavours of human, with exaggerated physical differences. The commonness of half-elves and half-orcs is an example of this. Thus, due to fantasy races often feeling like a stand-in for real world diversity (not on a one-to-one basis, just the concept, taken to a fantastical form), the issues of racism can be mirrored too. An example of how to do fantasy races in a way that avoids this can be seen in D&D - demons/devils and celestials work (they also have the advantage of drawing from real-world religion so already feeling non-human), as do more alien beings like elementals and mind-flayers.

On your last line, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by conserved. My interpretation is that you mean that the solutions are also seen subjectively, so some may find them more abhorrent than others. (Please correct me if I've interpreted that incorrectly, I wasn't sure..!) I agree, if you don't personally find something a problem you're often going to balk at solutions that make the game worse (from your point of view).

My comment on that is twofold - firstly, that empathy should be considered. It's positive to always want people to feel more comfortable, just because something may not be an issue for one person, doesn't mean that it isn't an issue for others - and sometimes we may have to sacrifice something, or make concessions, so that more people can enjoy something and feel welcome.
Secondly, that this is why discussion is key. By discussing and trying different ideas out, we can find a solution that works to solve the problem, with minimal inconvenience to others.

[stoutstien]

Of course the authors intent doesn't change, as I mentioned. Authorial intent matters.

But the idea that there is a single "correct" reading for a piece of literature is anathema to art. If that were the case, authors would write philosophy, not literature. Literature is about the effect art produces on a reader; it includes the reader, demands the reader bring their own experiences and life to the work.

Certainly there can be wrong (does not consider all facts) or mistaken readings. But there is not a single correct one!

One risk of your system: an author can deploy any sort of harmful stereotype they want, winking at group A and making this abundantly clear. But then if they come out and say "hey, you've got it all wrong, I didn't mean it like that"...you are forced to conclude there is no problem.

See the original printing of 5e ravenloft material(s).

[Trafalgar]

No. Sorry. I won't countenance such an argument. Talk to a black guy and see how they feel about this. These comparisons between explicitly racist literature and DND are clear and obvious, and the lore justification is nothing more than a little bit of makeup on the corpse.

You are assuming that everyone on this website is white and that's not true.

You are assuming that every "black guy" finds the portrayal of orcs deeply offensive. That's also not true.

This is an anonymous web forum. You don't know what I look like and I don't know what you look like. You are obviously really passionate about this but you shouldn't try to justify your arguments by claiming that every member of an ethnic group feels the same way.

[Bohandas]

The problem is that fantasy races don't really feel like they're different species

This is indeed the problem. And instead of fixing it they made it even worse by lessening the distinction further.

[Snails]

The idea that intent doesn't matter historically led to some unpleasant places.

Well, yes. But so has the converse. The idea that only intent matters gives infinite license to rewrite the rules based on whatever feelings someone in authority has in the moment.

"Well, I do not think you are a bad person, but your company symbol likes like a variant of things we will not allow" may or may not be a great decision, but it at least is understandable by third party observers, and such can be worked with in the long run.

"Oh, well, I do not like your attitude, so no go" or "Oh, I do like your attitude so the rulebook does not matter" works out worst in the long run.

[Bohandas]

You act as if there is some objective truth that an X is an N sign. There are a few signs so niche that only one group, or only one group in any way relevant to modernity used them, but most signs aren't like that.

Indeed, the most notorious white power symbol of all is also used by several peace-loving and primarily non-white groups.

[Xervous]

To change your art because someone complained is to cave to the heckler's veto. You are allowing that person to dictate how you must express yourself. Conform or be gone.

Someone having a negative emotional reaction to something doesn't make him right.

But when it comes to marketing and selling product, the customers are a big part of the equation. WotC decided they wanted to sell the kitchen sink to everyone, so that’s what they’re going about doing.

[Bohandas]

The idea that intent doesn't matter historically led to some unpleasant places.

Well, yes. But so has the converse. The idea that only intent matters gives infinite license to rewrite the rules based on whatever feelings someone in authority has in the moment.

I will say that there are times when even some forms of intent don't matter. Sometimes the article at hand is so old that it's just a dead thing. It doesn't matter if some old legend or piece of ancient literature openly espouses a worldview anathema to modern values, because it's just a dead piece of driftwood. It's values are incidental, and this is doubly the case if we should later decide to carve some new thing out of that driftwood.

[OldTrees1]

On your last line, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by conserved. My interpretation is that you mean that the solutions are also seen subjectively, (Please correct me if I've interpreted that incorrectly, I wasn't sure..!)

We reached page 30+ and I am bowing out of the thread. I apologize for only reply to this small part of your quality post.

"Not conserved" comes from negating a comparison to laws of conservation. For example the law of conservation of energy states that the sum of energy in a closed system will remain 100%. So saying something is "not conserved" means it can exceed or fall below 100%. I have often believed that blame/fault/responsibility is not conserved. Just because someone else could have 100% stopped something does not mean I could not have 100% stopped it. However that would imply blame/fault/responsibility was at 200%+ aka not conserved.

This also applies to opportunities to improve situations. Just because someone else could fix it, does not mean I can't fix it. This then also applies to people beyond myself. In the consumer/creator case, both have the opportunity to improve the situation. Neither the consumer nor the creator is powerless to help and the other having an opportunity to help does not negate their opportunity to help. The other having the capacity is not an excuse to not help.

[Pex]

But when it comes to marketing and selling product, the customers are a big part of the equation. WotC decided they wanted to sell the kitchen sink to everyone, so that’s what they’re going about doing.

By alienating other customers so they gain nothing. That WOTC chose to cave to the those who yelled doesn't make those who yelled correct. Then again it might not be a cave since they did have a major employee turnover, so it could be by purposeful design. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it and still doesn't change the original point. Just because someone heckles what you do doesn't mean you must change it.

[Sorinth]

By alienating other customers so they gain nothing. That WOTC chose to cave to the those who yelled doesn't make those who yelled correct. Then again it might not be a cave since they did have a major employee turnover, so it could be by purposeful design. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it and still doesn't change the original point. Just because someone heckles what you do doesn't mean you must change it.

Just because they may have alienated/lost some customers doesn't mean they gained nothing though. They aren't caving into some hecklers, they are betting that by having a more inclusive game that they will get and retain more players then they lose. And all signs point to that being true, Tasha's was the most pre-ordered book in D&D history, and the game has continued to grow rapidly. I remember reading not that long ago that wotc has had huge growth in 2021 (And Tasha's release was late 2020) so all signs point to this new direction being the right business decision even if it has upset/alientated some long time fans.

[Bohandas]

Also known as selling out

[Sigreid]

Just because they may have alienated/lost some customers doesn't mean they gained nothing though. They aren't caving into some hecklers, they are betting that by having a more inclusive game that they will get and retain more players then they lose. And all signs point to that being true, Tasha's was the most pre-ordered book in D&D history, and the game has continued to grow rapidly. I remember reading not that long ago that wotc has had huge growth in 2021 (And Tasha's release was late 2020) so all signs point to this new direction being the right business decision even if it has upset/alientated some long time fans.

D&D was always inclusive. The 1e DM's guide had an entire section about how the player's character can be anyone and no one was penalized for it. Yes, there were some optional rules for differentiating by gender, but a slight penalty here gave a slight bonus there.

[Atranen]

D&D was always inclusive. The 1e DM's guide had an entire section about how the player's character can be anyone and no one was penalized for it. Yes, there were some optional rules for differentiating by gender, but a slight penalty here gave a slight bonus there.

I wonder if all the new people buying the books felt that way

[Draconi Redfir]

i mean to be fair, i didn't play D&D until 3.5 not because i didn't like the earlier editions, but just because i wasn't really old enough or interested enough in trying.


a lot of people buying D&D now probably weren't even born when the earlier editions were made, and it's not like a game or a book where you need to first ones to understand the most recent ones. so why not pick up the most recent version and just start from there?

[Sorinth]

D&D was always inclusive. The 1e DM's guide had an entire section about how the player's character can be anyone and no one was penalized for it. Yes, there were some optional rules for differentiating by gender, but a slight penalty here gave a slight bonus there.

There's certainly an argument for inclusivity always having been an underlying ideal of the game but it obviously came up short in many ways. And it's probably an ideal that you can't actually reach just one you can strive for.

Up until Tasha's floating racial stats you were penalized for being off-brand. You could argue with bounded accuracy the +1 difference isn't a big penalty, but it's a penalty all the same. I don't remember 1e very well at all, but for sure in 2e I couldn't be whatever I wanted. By RAW I couldn't be a Dwarf Wizard, if I was a Gnome Wizard I had to be an Illusionist, I couldn't be a Necromancer or an Enchanter. Tasha's is just a continuation of that trend of removing the penalties that came with being going against the stereotypes.

[Sigreid]

I wonder if all the new people buying the books felt that way

i mean to be fair, i didn't play D&D until 3.5 not because i didn't like the earlier editions, but just because i wasn't really old enough or interested enough in trying.


a lot of people buying D&D now probably weren't even born when the earlier editions were made, and it's not like a game or a book where you need to first ones to understand the most recent ones. so why not pick up the most recent version and just start from there?

There's a lot to like about 5e over 1e. My only point there was that it was never set up to exclude anyone or any desired playstyle. It's not a new thing to want to sell to everyone possible.

[Bohandas]

but for sure in 2e I couldn't be whatever I wanted. By RAW I couldn't be a Dwarf Wizard, if I was a Gnome Wizard I had to be an Illusionist, I couldn't be a Necromancer or an Enchanter. Tasha's is just a continuation of that trend of removing the penalties that came with being going against the stereotypes.

That was problematic for the same reason that this is problematic and that undead and constructs not having a constitution score in 3e was problematic. They instituted a rule for a half baked philosophical reason that didn't totally make sense from either a gamist, narrativist, or simulationist perspective.

[dafrca]

I wonder if all the new people buying the books felt that way

I can't speak for others, but as a 14 year old in the mid 70's I did not know about nor had I even heard of things like "diversity and inclusion". I just played with who ever was willing to play. In those days playing D&D was not even close to the accepted thing it is now. We, my game group, were made fun of and attacked for being stupid nerds etcetera. So we didn't care your skin color, gender, or background. If you wanted to play there was a chair at the table for you. I didn't ask about labels as I was already marginalized just by being a gamer in the 70's. Just my personal experience of course.

[Psyren]

By alienating other customers so they gain nothing.

I'd wager very few of the ones they "alienated" are going to stop buying products, not even books, because of Tasha's and Fizban's. Maybe you plan to, maybe even others in this thread do too, but I'm confident that the more likely approach even among those who might despise it will be to gripe online and then continue to purchase new content, unless they weren't paying for content at all - and even those will likely support the hobby in other ways like watching content-creators, listening to podcasts etc.

Meanwhile they've gained folks who, like myself, were waiting on content like Xanathar's and Tasha's to flesh out the system further and who furthermore support what they're attempting.

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??

1) You'll have to explain to me how you think being lesser does not somehow equal being lesser. Declaring that to be a faulty assertion does not make it so. 15 is less than 17, and even in a purely mechanical sense has effects in the game.

2) I am completely fine with non-player races following different rules than PC races. Because they are non-player races and therefore are supposed to.

[Bohandas]

2) I am completely fine with non-player races following different rules than PC races. Because they are non-player races and therefore are supposed to.

Which is another problem with 5e vs 3.5. In 3.5e everything used the same rules and so you could play as anything

[Psyren]

Which is another problem with 5e vs 3.5. In 3.5e everything used the same rules and so you could play as anything

Not anything. Many monsters are LA: - and thus unsuitable Others were acquired templates and so required you to be something else first.

[Pex]

Just because they may have alienated/lost some customers doesn't mean they gained nothing though. They aren't caving into some hecklers, they are betting that by having a more inclusive game that they will get and retain more players then they lose. And all signs point to that being true, Tasha's was the most pre-ordered book in D&D history, and the game has continued to grow rapidly. I remember reading not that long ago that wotc has had huge growth in 2021 (And Tasha's release was late 2020) so all signs point to this new direction being the right business decision even if it has upset/alientated some long time fans.

You say that like the game was exclusive before Tasha. It never was. If anyone was excluded it was all D&D players being delegated to geekdom since its inception. It took relatively recent pop culture to make D&D cool via Stranger Things making it a theme and The Big Bang Theory making it funny. In 5E's favor it is easy to learn for people absolutely new to roleplaying games. There was nothing wrong with the game. The so called "Geek Culture" is not as ostracized as it used to be. I credit that to the Marvel Superhero and Harry Potter movies. Star Wars and Star Trek have benefited.

[Sorinth]

That was problematic for the same reason that this is problematic and that undead and constructs not having a constitution score in 3e was problematic. They instituted a rule for a half baked philosophical reason that didn't totally make sense from either a gamist, narrativist, or simulationist perspective.

Hard disagree.

From a gamist POV I find it a great change, but this is something that will be up to individual taste. I can say I'm enjoying character creation more with this change then I did before but fully understand others have the opposite opinion.

From a narrative POV D&D can be anything and everything so anything. I could have a classic D&D world where Dwarves are distrustful of arcane magic, or I can have a world where they have the best arcane institutions out there. Removing those built in narrative stereotypes allows for more varied narratives which is a positive.

From a simulationist POV nothings changed, racial stat boost were always a terrible/failed way of representing differences.

[Bohandas]

The problem is that fantasy races don't really feel like they're different species

This is the problem that they should have fixed. They should have hired some better writers instead of changing the rules.

It certainly could be. Humans as the only villains for a campaign (which wasn't even my suggestion, but seems to have been your inference) doesn't negate it being a fantastical setting, does it?

It certainly makes it less fantastic. I think you should go the opposite direction and have no human characters at all.

All PC races can necessarily be compared to humans in a variety of ways, because humans are one of the PC races.

That, at least, is easy enough to fix

Hard disagree.

From a gamist POV I find it a great change, but this is something that will be up to individual taste. I can say I'm enjoying character creation more with this change then I did before but fully understand others have the opposite opinion.

From a narrative POV D&D can be anything and everything so anything. I could have a classic D&D world where Dwarves are distrustful of arcane magic, or I can have a world where they have the best arcane institutions out there. Removing those built in narrative stereotypes allows for more varied narratives which is a positive.

From a simulationist POV nothings changed, racial stat boost were always a terrible/failed way of representing differences.

In retrospect you're right. That was my mistake, I had been thinking of the racial level caps, not the racial class restrictions

[Psyren]

It certainly makes it less fantastic. I think you should go the opposite direction and have no human characters at all.


That, at least, is easy enough to fix.

I find it amusing that some apparently would rather have a fantasy game with no humans in it at all than simply separate PC ASIs from race

[Sorinth]

You say that like the game was exclusive before Tasha. It never was. If anyone was excluded it was all D&D players being delegated to geekdom since its inception. It took relatively recent pop culture to make D&D cool via Stranger Things making it a theme and The Big Bang Theory making it funny. In 5E's favor it is easy to learn for people absolutely new to roleplaying games. There was nothing wrong with the game. The so called "Geek Culture" is not as ostracized as it used to be. I credit that to the Marvel Superhero and Harry Potter movies. Star Wars and Star Trek have benefited.

Well it's not a binary thing, it is more inclusive now then it was in the past, and will likely to continue to be more inclusive in the future. In the past it wasn't going out of it's way to exclude certain type of people but like most things it had blindspots that did have that effect. For example go read the section on gender from 3e and the one in 5e. The language used in 5e is more inclusive to trans people then the 3e language and even then the 5e language could be improved upon.

[Bohandas]

I find it amusing that some apparently would rather have a fantasy game with no humans in it at all than simply separate PC ASIs from race

I had this opinion long before Tasha's came out, but Tasha does illustrate one more way that it's problematic

[Xihirli]

It certainly makes it less fantastic. I think you should go the opposite direction and have no human characters at all.

There are plenty of fantasy stories with only human villains that i happen to love. The Wizard Test, The Goblin Wood, Knight and Rogue... heck, Prince Caspian and A Horse and His Boy manage even though the series has witches and the literal devil in its pool of villains.

[Bohandas]

There's plenty of stories and media with no human characters that are still good