Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[Psyren]

I love Tashas and thankfully, so does our GM. It's here to stay

Even putting aside the fun player options, Tasha's gave us quality of life stuff like NPC classes/sidekicks, retraining rules, FAR less annoying summons, and a bunch of other DM tools like puzzles and environmental phenomena. I'm hoping some of the things it introduced gets added to 5.5 core.

[ad_hoc]

I just want to say that I love Tasha's. I love giving players more options and more creative license. I don't play in games where everyone is power gaming. We try to make interesting, original characters, and if you can make that interesting character with a 16 in your starting stat instead of a 14 because the race and class don't match, that's great. Before Tasha's, most people limited their class/race combo to things that had a bonus to their primary stat. Now, a whole world of options has opened up. I haven't seen everyone in my games taking mountain dwarf, half-elf or custom lineage.

You say your group weren't powergaming but then in the next breath say that your group would only play a character if they had a 16+ in their primary stat.

That's powergaming.

Tasha's hasn't opened up more options, just different ones.

Different races are now best for particular classes. That's all. And now they're not even usually thematically coherent.

[Yakmala]

I love having the attribute bonuses flexible for the various races. Player characters are supposed to be exceptional or unusual members of their respective races and the impact on gameplay is minimal compared to the other choices that go into making a character. A Halfling starting with a 17 strength or a Half Orc starting with 17 charisma is barely worth mentioning compared to someone starting as a Yuan-Ti Ancients Paladin, an option that has been around for half a decade now.

[Dark.Revenant]

Tasha's hasn't opened up more options, just different ones.

No, Customizing Your Lineage hasn't opened up more options. It just makes most of those options feel less bad to pick.


Let's say you really want to play a tiefling fighter. This tiefling was bullied and beat up for their race throughout childhood and grew up tough with antisocial, violent tendencies; he left home to join a mercenary band and thus you use a modified Soldier background when take your first level in Fighter. Assuming standard array, in order to fit the backstory you arrange the stats as 14 Str, 12 Dex, 15 Con, 10 Int, 13 Wis, 8 Cha. The default racial modifiers would raise Intelligence to 11 and Charisma to 10, which makes no sense for this character. Even if you specifically picked Zariel Tiefling or something, that just swaps that 11 Int for 15 Strength—no meaningful difference unless you manipulate the arrangement of stats so that Strength gets the raw 15.

At that point, Customizing Your Lineage comes to the rescue: you take Zariel Tiefling and swap Charisma for Constitution, representing an upbringing that prioritized hard knocks over charm and wit. This gives you 15 Strength and 17 Constitution. You're still not even starting with a 16 in your primary stat, but that's okay because at 4th level you can take something like Heavy Armor Master (-> 16 Strength) and at 6th you can take Infernal Constitution (-> 18 Constitution) and then Resilient at 8th (-> 14 Wisdom), both representing how damn tough your character is.


Characterizing this as a power-gamer's tool is a narrow view, in my eyes.

[loki_ragnarock]

No, Customizing Your Lineage hasn't opened up more options. It just makes most of those options feel less bad to pick.


Let's say you really want to play a tiefling fighter. This tiefling was bullied and beat up for their race throughout childhood and grew up tough with antisocial, violent tendencies; he left home to join a mercenary band and thus you use a modified Soldier background when take your first level in Fighter. Assuming standard array, in order to fit the backstory you arrange the stats as 14 Str, 12 Dex, 15 Con, 10 Int, 13 Wis, 8 Cha. The default racial modifiers would raise Intelligence to 11 and Charisma to 10, which makes no sense for this character. Even if you specifically picked Zariel Tiefling or something, that just swaps that 11 Int for 15 Strength—no meaningful difference unless you manipulate the arrangement of stats so that Strength gets the raw 15.

At that point, Customizing Your Lineage comes to the rescue: you take Zariel Tiefling and swap Charisma for Constitution, representing an upbringing that prioritized hard knocks over charm and wit. This gives you 15 Strength and 17 Constitution. You're still not even starting with a 16 in your primary stat, but that's okay because at 4th level you can take something like Heavy Armor Master (-> 16 Strength) and at 6th you can take Infernal Constitution (-> 18 Constitution) and then Resilient at 8th (-> 14 Wisdom), both representing how damn tough your character is.


Characterizing this as a power-gamer's tool is a narrow view, in my eyes.

What makes the character heroic is the standard array, not the ability bonuses.

That tiefling fighter works just fine with a starting 14 strength.

[stoutstien]

Im tittering on the fence with Tasha's now that I've had time to read over fizbans. Going forward with new races and subclasses they have shown they can Introduce favor and presence regardless of ASI backing. I'm tentatively hopeful.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What makes the character heroic is the standard array, not the ability bonuses.

That tiefling fighter works just fine with a starting 14 strength.

Correct on both accounts. A starting character with no racial ASIs at all is well above the norm for normal people in 2 areas (15, 14), above the norm in two more (13, 12), average in 1 (11) and below the norm in 1 (8). And the standard array is the worst (on average) option for starting ability scores of the ones listed. As far as hit points go, they start out with above average at worst (ie d6 HD and -1 CON bonus gives 5 HP compared to a commoner's 4) and can have well over 3x the norm (barbarian starts at 3x the norm with no CON bonus). They start with between 4 and...lots of skill proficiencies (commoners have none). Many of them start with training in and possession of expensive arms and armor[1] or magic abilities (or both!). D&D PCs are not normal people, even from level 1.

And yes, a 14 starting main stat is well within the norm. And fighters have tons of ASIs to build it up.

[1] A heavy-armor fighter's starting equipment, not even counting the pack is worth:
* chainmail: 75 gp
* longsword: 15 gp
* shield: 10 gp
* 2 handaxes: 10 gp
for a total of 110 gp, enough for nearly 2 years of a poor lifestyle or 3.5 months of a modest lifestyle. And if we include the packs, that's another 10 gp (explorer's) or 12 gp (dungeoneer's)...and that's at an extreme discount to buying the pieces individually.

[Valmark]

It is though. It's one of the most basic power gaming choices in the baseline game, along with immediately putting your ASIs into your primary class score as you level.

If making your character better at what it's supposed to be good at is power gaming then everything is power gaming.

[Bobthewizard]

You say your group weren't powergaming but then in the next breath say that your group would only play a character if they had a 16+ in their primary stat.

That's powergaming.

Tasha's hasn't opened up more options, just different ones.

Different races are now best for particular classes. That's all. And now they're not even usually thematically coherent.

It is though. It's one of the most basic power gaming choices in the baseline game, along with immediately putting your ASIs into your primary class score as you level.

I play with a lot of different people. Most people I play causally with tend to make characters with 16's. My close group didn't worry about it.

Pre-Tasha's, I observed that most players made character/race combinations that let them start with a 16. I don't think most players even thought about it much. If they wanted to play a cleric, they picked one of the races with a +1 or +2 to Wisdom. But some people, including the core group of people I play with, didn't worry about it, they were willing to start with a 14, and now those people can still make that interesting combination without having to start behind most everyone else.

People can have different opinions as far as what is power gaming and what is just making a competent character. I've played in games where my style is overpowered, and I've played in games where my style is far behind the other players. Personally, I don't consider starting with a 16 in your main stat power gaming if 90% of characters start with that. To me, power gaming is trying to be better than that 90% of other players. Obviously different tables have different ideas for that. Different people at the same table can have different ideas on that. I've just seen much more variety in character/race combinations post-Tasha's than I saw before.

[Amnestic]

Is having a 14 crippling? No.
Is having a 16 overpowered? Also no.

The races were not balanced before Tasha's. They continue to not be so after Tasha's. Except now players can feel less punished for choosing something off-standard.

[Thunderous Mojo]

You say your group weren't powergaming but then in the next breath say that your group would only play a character if they had a 16+ in their primary stat.

That's powergaming..

I'm earnestly asking this question on behalf of a friend:

"What is achieved by defining 'power gaming' so broadly as to make the term nigh useless?"

[Anymage]

Assuming standard array, in order to fit the backstory you arrange the stats as 14 Str, 12 Dex, 15 Con, 10 Int, 13 Wis, 8 Cha. The default racial modifiers would raise Intelligence to 11 and Charisma to 10, which makes no sense for this character. Even if you specifically picked Zariel Tiefling or something, that just swaps that 11 Int for 15 Strength—no meaningful difference unless you manipulate the arrangement of stats so that Strength gets the raw 15.

At that point, Customizing Your Lineage comes to the rescue: you take Zariel Tiefling and swap Charisma for Constitution, representing an upbringing that prioritized hard knocks over charm and wit. This gives you 15 Strength and 17 Constitution...

Some element of "power gaming" is expected from pretty much every table I've seen. 15 and 14 get the same +2 mod, and it's incredibly rare for someone who knows what they're doing to have as many odd scores as your build does when they could shift points around for more beneficial even scores instead. If your table actually has enough people with lots of odd scores, a plus or minus one to whatever rolls won't change much but also isn't the typical case.

Is having a 14 crippling? No.
Is having a 16 overpowered? Also no.

The races were not balanced before Tasha's. They continue to not be so after Tasha's. Except now players can feel less punished for choosing something off-standard.

I absolutely get - and agree with - the idea that a player can expect to start with a 16 in their primary stat. I encourage DMs to work with players to make that work.

Fully flex stats go past that benchmark and let everyone have the exact ASIs they might want, which is a bit more of a perk. Combine with the way that other proficiencies also boil down now to telling the player "take whatever you want, it's all good", the whole thing feels thrown together.

Edit to add: I've seen people elsewhere say that instead of rolling or point buy, their players just pick whatever stats they think their character should have and go with that. Apparently it works well for these tables. That's even more "don't let the books get in the way of letting you play the character you want to play", so should that be the character building default going forwards?

Someone will always have a character whose concept is best reflected with better stats, a key magic item, another level beyond what they already have, or something like that. Again I want to reiterate that the DM and player working together so the halfling barbarian or the orc bard have a +3 to their relevant prime stat is entirely reasonable. At what point, though, should the rules and expected power band step up to limit character options?

[Amnestic]

I absolutely get - and agree with - the idea that a player can expect to start with a 16 in their primary stat. I encourage DMs to work with players to make that work.

Fully flex stats go past that benchmark and let everyone have the exact ASIs they might want, which is a bit more of a perk. Combine with the way that other proficiencies also boil down now to telling the player "take whatever you want, it's all good", the whole thing feels thrown together.

It's not a fully robust racial revamp, nor do I believe it was intended to be. Such a thing is probably more likely to appear in the 5.5e books coming in 2024. Tasha's stuff is an easy to digest, easy to understand, optional rule - one that doesn't require "DMs to work with players to make that work" every time they think about a dragonborn rogue with a 16 in dex or literally any PHB race with a +2 in Wis. It saves any sort of conversation about "hey, can my character have this because I think it fits the backstory better mother may I?"

I'm not saying it's perfect - I already noted that races are still unbalanced post-Tasha's (if that's even an issue worth addressing in the first place) - but I believe it adequately does what it's intended to: Give players a way to widen their racial options without feeling they're gimping themselves in doing so.

[Psyren]

I want to second the folks saying that feeling is important. Yes at the end of the day a +1 change to the modifier is not a big deal, but starting with a 16 in your key score undeniably feels better than starting with a 14. If it didn't, people wouldn't be trying so hard to do exactly that. And at the end of the day, crafting mechanics that evoke experiential feeling is the heart of what game design is.

[Pex]

It is though. It's one of the most basic power gaming choices in the baseline game, along with immediately putting your ASIs into your primary class score as you level.

It's not like power gaming is the worst thing ever, though. I can appreciate not wanting being cheesy about it. Power gaming is not inherently bad, but there is that nuance to want to roll your eyes someone playing a mountain dwarf wizard to get +2 In, +2 DX/CO, and armor proficiency. At the same time, though, using normal rules there's no wrongness for playing a half-elf or tiefling when playing a bard, sorcerer, or warlock. It's saying some power gaming is good while other power gaming is bad. It's both true and hypocritical. There's a proverbial line that shouldn't be crossed. It's hard to define where that line is, but it's obvious when it gets crossed.

Correct on both accounts. A starting character with no racial ASIs at all is well above the norm for normal people in 2 areas (15, 14), above the norm in two more (13, 12), average in 1 (11) and below the norm in 1 (8). And the standard array is the worst (on average) option for starting ability scores of the ones listed. As far as hit points go, they start out with above average at worst (ie d6 HD and -1 CON bonus gives 5 HP compared to a commoner's 4) and can have well over 3x the norm (barbarian starts at 3x the norm with no CON bonus). They start with between 4 and...lots of skill proficiencies (commoners have none). Many of them start with training in and possession of expensive arms and armor[1] or magic abilities (or both!). D&D PCs are not normal people, even from level 1.

And yes, a 14 starting main stat is well within the norm. And fighters have tons of ASIs to build it up.

[1] A heavy-armor fighter's starting equipment, not even counting the pack is worth:
* chainmail: 75 gp
* longsword: 15 gp
* shield: 10 gp
* 2 handaxes: 10 gp
for a total of 110 gp, enough for nearly 2 years of a poor lifestyle or 3.5 months of a modest lifestyle. And if we include the packs, that's another 10 gp (explorer's) or 12 gp (dungeoneer's)...and that's at an extreme discount to buying the pieces individually.

Comparing PCs to the local NPC population is not relevant to the player. What matters is the PCs' statistics compared to the foes they face. Sure, your typical standard low level foes of goblins or skeletons don't have awesome stats, but soon enough the party will face foes that hit hard or have condition effects to be resisted while having lots of hit points. Those are the dangers players worry about and are not wrong to wanting a 16 in their prime at first level and get to 18 or 20 quickly because they need to drop the bad guys as fast as possible before the bad guys drop them. A fighter having a 14 ST means he's stronger than everyone in Podunk has no value.

[OldTrees1]

I want to second the folks saying that feeling is important. Yes at the end of the day a +1 change to the modifier is not a big deal, but starting with a 16 in your key score undeniably feels better than starting with a 14. If it didn't, people wouldn't be trying so hard to do exactly that. And at the end of the day, crafting mechanics that evoke experiential feeling is the heart of what game design is.

There is a related feeling. The feeling of playing a non human species. WotC is rather "timid" and "non-proficient" at creating that feeling in 5E. However the +2 that Aarakocra, Warforged, and Yuan-ti get helps create the feeling of playing a non human species. Now those particular examples have other traits as well and it makes a well rounded representation of non-human. However many of the 5E species are already basically human.

Consider a hypothetical Ogre PC species with +2 Str, +1 any and Large size. Even the weakest Ogre has a bit of natural advantage when it comes to Strength. The bonus to Strength, combined with Large size helps craft the feeling of "this is not just another human". If it was +2 any, +1 any instead then the ludonarrative would be Ogres are not strong OR that Ogre PCs are not actually Ogres.

In hindsight I noticed I gave the Ogre a +1 any. An Ogre Wizard PC could have +1 Int to create that 16 feeling.

[strangebloke]

The thing is, a race being off brand for a particular class because it's mechanically suboptimal is WHAT makes such a race/class combination fun to play. At least for me.

If everyone can be a bookish half orc wizard at no penalty, your choice to be such isn't notable except purely in the sense of subverting stereotypes. The fact that you're playing a handing barbarian or a gnome monk is fun because it's suboptimal.

And the thing now is, despite the homogenization, things still aren't balanced so you have a new "best race" for each class, it's just completely non intuitive which one it will be because both these features were rushed and badly designed.

Now mountain dwarf is an amazing option for casters and a terrible one for fighters and strength based characters, where before it was a good caster race and a great martial race.

[GooeyChewie]

Tasha's stuff is an easy to digest, easy to understand, optional rule...

No, the rule was optional. But ever since Tasha’s WotC has refused to print even suggested racial ASIs, effectively making the rule mandatory. Or at least, partially mandatory and unfair not to use if you are allowing more recent races. The fear that this “optional” rule would not stay optional turned out to be completely justified.

I want to second the folks saying that feeling is important. Yes at the end of the day a +1 change to the modifier is not a big deal, but starting with a 16 in your key score undeniably feels better than starting with a 14. If it didn't, people wouldn't be trying so hard to do exactly that.

I can agree that it feels a lot better to have a starting 16 in a key ability score than to have a starting 14. But WotC could easily have adjusted the point buy rules to accommodate that desire. Simply add a line that gives you a 16. And if they want to make sure 18 doesn’t become the new 16, they could put a restriction on it that you can only buy it if your race doesn’t get an ASI in that ability score.

And at the end of the day, crafting mechanics that evoke experiential feeling is the heart of what game design is.

I completely agree. And to me, the floating ability score increases on the new races make them feel anemic.

Imagine, for example, if the new Dragonborn came with ’typical’ ASIs. Metallics might keep +2 Str/+1 Cha to make them ideal Paladins. Chromatics might shift to +2 Cha/+1 Con to feel more like Warlocks empowered by Tiamat. And Gems could get +2 Int/+1 Cha to really set them apart. Even if they specifically said these ASIs were just suggestions, my experience would be enhanced greatly by knowing whether I am playing towards or against type for the race.

[Amnestic]

No, the rule was optional. But ever since Tasha’s WotC has refused to print even suggested racial ASIs, effectively making the rule mandatory. Or at least, partially mandatory and unfair not to use if you are allowing more recent races. The fear that this “optional” rule would not stay optional turned out to be completely justified.

All races are optional.

Races with completely floating ASIs have been in the game since the PHB, with the (optional, incredibly popular) V.Human.

Is there anything from stopping you from enforcing your own idea of 'suggested' racial ASIs on yourself when you make a character? Sure, you could go +2 Str/+1 Con for your Owlkin Barbarian, but in your mind they're really more of a +2 Wis/+1 Dex race, so you can pick that instead. Go for it, if that's what makes you happy. After all, a 14 in your primary stat isn't that big of a deal.

[Anymage]

one that doesn't require "DMs to work with players to make that work" every time they think about a dragonborn rogue with a 16 in dex or literally any PHB race with a +2 in Wis. It saves any sort of conversation about "hey, can my character have this because I think it fits the backstory better mother may I?"

This is something that makes no sense to me.

You want to make something with the mechanical pieces as they exist to see how it does in a game? Great, but ASIs are part of that mechanical bundle and should be acknowledged as such. This also mostly applies to abstract optimization discussions or open games where you're expected to bring a character ahead of time and be run through a module. Neither case where your dashing dwarven bard's backstory is likely to be engaged.

You want to play in a game where your characters have their stories deeply tied into the ongoing world? You have to get the DM on your page if you want dwarven Don Juan's backstory and antics to be relevant. In fact it's smart to check in with the DM early on so he doesn't decide that dwarves are asexual sentient stone or something. You're already playing "mother may I" bringing the character in. I don't see how asking to shift one point of Con into Cha is that much of an ask, especially when the DM is actively encouraged to work with you.

Also, to a lot of players it's important that races do mean something. Mountain dwarves being strong and hardy is part of what being a mountain dwarf is. Dwarven Don Juan shifting one stat point into Cha in order to reach a specific breakpoint is something I fully encourage. Shifting his racial ASIs entirely into Cha and Dex while dumping strength entirely (while keeping medium armor because that's what he was going for in the first place) sounds a bit sketchier.

[Amnestic]

You want to play in a game where your characters have their stories deeply tied into the ongoing world? You have to get the DM on your page if you want dwarven Don Juan's backstory and antics to be relevant. In fact it's smart to check in with the DM early on so he doesn't decide that dwarves are asexual sentient stone or something. You're already playing "mother may I" bringing the character in. I don't see how asking to shift one point of Con into Cha is that much of an ask, especially when the DM is actively encouraged to work with you.

A conversation of "how does Paal the Green, my dragonborn rogue, fit into your setting" has a different tone to "Because my dragonborn is a rogue I want to remove the dragonborn's (apparent) innate strength and charisma and instead have them be innately dextrous and wise". Now, clearly, I don't care about that. I'm a fan of Tasha's rules. But a number of people clearly feel otherwise, and pretending that the two conversations are the same just isn't the case - one's story, one's mechanics. The mechanics might inform the story, or vice versa, but regardless once you start crunching numbers it's a different conversation to have, and one that evidently a number of people would shut down. As you show here:

Also, to a lot of players it's important that races do mean something. Mountain dwarves being strong and hardy is part of what being a mountain dwarf is. Dwarven Don Juan shifting one stat point into Cha in order to reach a specific breakpoint is something I fully encourage. Shifting his racial ASIs entirely into Cha and Dex while dumping strength entirely (while keeping medium armor because that's what he was going for in the first place) sounds a bit sketchier.

[Dienekes]

There is a related feeling. The feeling of playing a non human species. WotC is rather "timid" and "non-proficient" at creating that feeling in 5E. However the +2 that Aarakocra, Warforged, and Yuan-ti get helps create the feeling of playing a non human species. Now those particular examples have other traits as well and it makes a well rounded representation of non-human. However many of the 5E species are already basically human.

Consider a hypothetical Ogre PC species with +2 Str, +1 any and Large size. Even the weakest Ogre has a bit of natural advantage when it comes to Strength. The bonus to Strength, combined with Large size helps craft the feeling of "this is not just another human". If it was +2 any, +1 any instead then the ludonarrative would be Ogres are not strong OR that Ogre PCs are not actually Ogres.

In hindsight I noticed I gave the Ogre a +1 any. An Ogre Wizard PC could have +1 Int to create that 16 feeling.

So question. I personally would love if all the races actually felt completely inhuman if they were played. Each unique and interesting. I want a world with a complex enough system where maybe an Orc Wizard may not be as smart as the other Wizards, but can basically just walk up, grapple their opponent and then automatically succeed on all their Touch spells, because what is the grappled opponent going to do? A playstyle that would work, and feel like something special to Orcs and other big tough races.

But that’s not 5e.

In 5e the difference is having a starting Strength of 17 if your race specializes in the primary attribute. 16 if you’re human, which has no real mechanical difference from 17, really. Except maybe when you get held feats if you want them, and 15 if you have no relevant ASI in your race. Which is just slightly worse at everything they’re supposed to be doing. Not dramatically worse. Not game breakingly worse. Not this is a useless build worse. But just, slightly worse.

I don’t feel a difference. It doesn’t effect the playstyle much if at all. Do you find the difference of 17 to the human 16 as really a relevant demonstration of the strength of this Ogre character?

[sithlordnergal]

Consider a hypothetical Ogre PC species with +2 Str, +1 any and Large size. Even the weakest Ogre has a bit of natural advantage when it comes to Strength. The bonus to Strength, combined with Large size helps craft the feeling of "this is not just another human". If it was +2 any, +1 any instead then the ludonarrative would be Ogres are not strong OR that Ogre PCs are not actually Ogres.

Tell me, why would have +2 Int and +1 Dex make an Ogre PC any less of an Ogre? If the PC is still Large and has whatever Racial abilities Ogres gain, then they're still an Ogre. I said this previously, but what makes a Half-Orc a Half-Orc isn't their +2 Strength, +1 Constitution, its their Savage Attacks, Menacing, and Relentless Endurance abilities. Same holds true for all the other races. A Gnome isn't a Gnome because they have +2 to Int, they're a Gnome because they're Small and have Gnomish Cunning.

As such, it doesn't really matter what the ability scores are for a race, as long as they have their unique racial abilities to set them apart.

[Dienekes]

Tell me, why would have +2 Int and +1 Dex make an Ogre PC any less of an Ogre? If the PC is still Large and has whatever Racial abilities Ogres gain, then they're still an Ogre. I said this previously, but what makes a Half-Orc a Half-Orc isn't their +2 Strength, +1 Constitution, its their Savage Attacks, Menacing, and Relentless Endurance abilities. Same holds true for all the other races. A Gnome isn't a Gnome because they have +2 to Int, they're a Gnome because they're Small and have Gnomish Cunning.

As such, it doesn't really matter what the ability scores are for a race, as long as they have their unique racial abilities to set them apart.

Kind of.

I mean, is the fantasy of an Ogre that they are big, strong, powerful, and physically dominant? If that is true, then the race should be bigger, stronger, more physical powerful and dominant than a human. If it’s not, then yes, it is definitely less of an Ogre.

An elf is supposed to be grace personified. Their every movement is agile and they are quick. The only representation of that in their character traits is a +2 to Dex.

In the same vein, a dwarf is supposed to be tougher than tough. They are the sons of stone. They should be laughing at hits that make other races cower. For most of the Dwarf subraces the only mechanical demonstration of this feature is the +2 to Con. Now, admittedly the Hill Dwarf has the +1 to hp per level. So they got something going. Good for them. But the rest? Yeah that bonus to Con is pretty important for their dwarfiness.


The issue, is that while this stat does indicate the fluff of the race, it doesn’t actually do a good job of demonstrating it. Dwarves are supposed to be tough as stone. A +2 to Con is a really boring way to show that really. But for most of them, it’s the only way they have.

Now other races have it a bit easier. Halfling’s defining features are they are small and lucky. That’s about it. They sort of have agile tacked on, because why not? But it’s not nearly as important to the fluff of the Halfling, it’s more just an add on to the whole Small bit.

[Captbrannigan]

Tell me, why would have +2 Int and +1 Dex make an Ogre PC any less of an Ogre? If the PC is still Large and has whatever Racial abilities Ogres gain, then they're still an Ogre. I said this previously, but what makes a Half-Orc a Half-Orc isn't their +2 Strength, +1 Constitution, its their Savage Attacks, Menacing, and Relentless Endurance abilities. Same holds true for all the other races. A Gnome isn't a Gnome because they have +2 to Int, they're a Gnome because they're Small and have Gnomish Cunning.

As such, it doesn't really matter what the ability scores are for a race, as long as they have their unique racial abilities to set them apart.

This is where I fall. Racial traits and *gasp* FLUFF text provide plenty enough guidance for where to assign modifiers to be on-type. If you want to play off type, such as a Half-Orc wizard who spent his childhood hiding his nose in a book - how does it make sense they have higher than normal STR and CON? Why can't 1/10000 Half-Orcs be a genius? Most people won't pick Half-Orc Wizard because it's not an famous movie/novel/anime inspired choice and no matter the mods, Savage Attacks isn't doing much for a Wizard. So no matter the racial mods, Half-Orc Wizard still lets you be an edgelord who plays sub-optimal for the sake of RP. And if it matters to you that much, you can still put the bonuses in STR and CON to emphasize how off-type and special your Half-Orc Wizard is.

I also love all the people up in arms over power gaming when they insist the only defining characteristic of a Dwarf is their racial ability modifiers.

[OldTrees1]

So question. I personally would love if all the races actually felt completely inhuman if they were played. Each unique and interesting. I want a world with a complex enough system where maybe an Orc Wizard may not be as smart as the other Wizards, but can basically just walk up, grapple their opponent and then automatically succeed on all their Touch spells, because what is the grappled opponent going to do? A playstyle that would work, and feel like something special to Orcs and other big tough races.

But that’s not 5e.

In 5e the difference is having a starting Strength of 17 if your race specializes in the primary attribute. 16 if you’re human, which has no real mechanical difference from 17, really. Except maybe when you get held feats if you want them, and 15 if you have no relevant ASI in your race. Which is just slightly worse at everything they’re supposed to be doing. Not dramatically worse. Not game breakingly worse. Not this is a useless build worse. But just, slightly worse.

I don’t feel a difference. It doesn’t effect the playstyle much if at all. Do you find the difference of 17 to the human 16 as really a relevant demonstration of the strength of this Ogre character?

A hypothetical Ogre PC species that has a +2 Str creates a ludonarrative that Ogres are strong. This matches the ludonarrative the Ogre stat block with 19 Str conveys. The matching ludonarratives helps reinforce another ludonarrative that the PC Ogre is also an Ogre rather than some knockoff (PC Centaurs are Medium Sized for no good reason).

In short an Ogre PC Species that has a +2 Str that results in an Ogre PC with 10-17 Str makes a difference even if this particular Ogre Barbarian has 14 Str (12+2) and is in a party with a Human Barbarian with 16 Str (15+1).

In short, yes even if we are talking about an Ogre character with 10 Str (8+2).

However I do feel like this works best when there is a significant advantage described by the narrative. The narrative has Ogres being really strong (matching the ludonarrative created by 19 Str vs the Human 11 Str). So it feels like a bigger deal to erase that feature (Sort of like erasing the Undead type from an Undead species). That is one of several reasons why I used a hypothetical Ogre PC species rather than a Orc species.

Edit: You had another post

Kind of.

I mean, is the fantasy of an Ogre that they are big, strong, powerful, and physically dominant? If that is true, then the race should be bigger, stronger, more physical powerful and dominant than a human. If it’s not, then yes, it is definitely less of an Ogre.

An elf is supposed to be grace personified. Their every movement is agile and they are quick. The only representation of that in their character traits is a +2 to Dex.

In the same vein, a dwarf is supposed to be tougher than tough. They are the sons of stone. They should be laughing at hits that make other races cower. For most of the Dwarf subraces the only mechanical demonstration of this feature is the +2 to Con. Now, admittedly the Hill Dwarf has the +1 to hp per level. So they got something going. Good for them. But the rest? Yeah that bonus to Con is pretty important for their dwarfiness.


The issue, is that while this stat does indicate the fluff of the race, it doesn’t actually do a good job of demonstrating it. Dwarves are supposed to be tough as stone. A +2 to Con is a really boring way to show that really. But for most of them, it’s the only way they have.

Now other races have it a bit easier. Halfling’s defining features are they are small and lucky. That’s about it. They sort of have agile tacked on, because why not? But it’s not nearly as important to the fluff of the Halfling, it’s more just an add on to the whole Small bit.

Personally I feel most of the 5E PC species (Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, for examples) are barely non human mechanically. This was an issue in other editions too and is one of the reason why my examples were Winged Humanoid with +2 Dex, Living construct with +2 Con, Yuan Ti with +2 Cha, and hypothetical literal giants with +2 Str.

A Dwarf could have been made to feel non human. However most of their features a cultural features and that makes me start to question if the D&D Dwarf's ability traits are cultural too (especially since some of them are cultural). All in all a 5E Dwarf feels like a demihuman to me.

Now someone could make a Dwarf species that brings forth the non human child of stone aspect. I think a +2 Con would be at home complementing and enhancing the other features such a species might have (damage reduction 1 from a stony skin for example).

This makes me think that fixed ability scores (in contrast to floating ones) work best when there are other features whose flavor they can reinforce.

Tell me, why would have +2 Int and +1 Dex make an Ogre PC any less of an Ogre? If the PC is still Large and has whatever Racial abilities Ogres gain, then they're still an Ogre. I said this previously, but what makes a Half-Orc a Half-Orc isn't their +2 Strength, +1 Constitution, its their Savage Attacks, Menacing, and Relentless Endurance abilities. Same holds true for all the other races. A Gnome isn't a Gnome because they have +2 to Int, they're a Gnome because they're Small and have Gnomish Cunning.

As such, it doesn't really matter what the ability scores are for a race, as long as they have their unique racial abilities to set them apart.

Was the tone intended or was I misreading your intent? Dienekes's post was better, feel free to read my more in depth reply to them.

What ludonarrative are you proposing? Are you proposing the PC is an Ogre and Ogres don't have a tendency towards greater strength? Or are you proposing that unlike all other Ogres, all Ogre PCs don't have a tendency towards strength even in the form of a 10 Str? Both of those have ludonarrative dissonance which decreases the experience of playing a non human. As Psyren said (when talking about having a 16)

And at the end of the day, crafting mechanics that evoke experiential feeling is the heart of what game design is.

So I feel the +2 Str +1 any is a nice balance for a literal Giant. You get your 16 Int Ogre Magi and I get Strong Large Ogres instead of you having a 15 Int Ogre Magi or me getting Large Ogres that have no tendency towards being Strong.

However we don't need to find the right balance. I was listening to Psyren describe one experience and I was replying by adding on by describing another experience.

Edit: Dienekes had another post

[JellyPooga]

how does it make sense they have higher than normal STR and CON? Why can't 1/10000 Half-Orcs be a genius?

A1) Because half-orcs have a racial predeliction for strength and toughness. That's part of being a Half-orc. Even a below average Half-orc is about average compared to most humans or elves.

A2) They are. Either because they rolled stats and got that golden 18 or used point-buy or an array and put their highest score in it.

I really can't fathom the reasoning behind "well anyone should have the opportunity to be as good as anyone else" because it's simply not the case. Gnomes are smarter than Orcs. Does that mean every Gnome is smarter than every Orc? No. Of course not, but on average it's a generalisation that can and should be made, just as it can be asserted that most Ogres are going to and should win an arm-wrestle against most Gnomes.

The unusual cases, the outliers, the beefy Halfling, hay-for-brains Gnomes and genius Half-orcs are accounted for by every PC having hero level, above averate Ability Scores. If every PC was assigned 10,10,10,11,11,11 stats at character creation, I'd see an argument for decoupling ability scores from race, but they're not and I don't.

[GooeyChewie]

All races are optional.

I mean, when you get down to it, playing D&D at all is optional. If you want to play with a post-Tasha’s race using printed racial ASIs instead of the “optional” Tasha’s rule, too bad. Those printed racial ASIs don’t exist.

Races with completely floating ASIs have been in the game since the PHB, with the (optional, incredibly popular) V.Human.

Yes, and the fact that V.Human has floating ASIs used to be one of the big distinguishing features for that race.

Is there anything from stopping you from enforcing your own idea of 'suggested' racial ASIs on yourself when you make a character? Sure, you could go +2 Str/+1 Con for your Owlkin Barbarian, but in your mind they're really more of a +2 Wis/+1 Dex race, so you can pick that instead. Go for it, if that's what makes you happy. After all, a 14 in your primary stat isn't that big of a deal.

Sure, I can figure out what I think the typical ASIs would be for any given new race and use those. But I shouldn’t *need* to figure them out. I’m not saying that players who prefer Tasha’s rule shouldn’t be able to use it; I’m saying it isn’t really optional if the subsequent races don’t support NOT using it.

[sithlordnergal]

A hypothetical Ogre PC species that has a +2 Str creates a ludonarrative that Ogres are strong. This matches the ludonarrative the Ogre stat block with 19 Str conveys. The matching ludonarratives helps reinforce another ludonarrative that the PC Ogre is also an Ogre rather than some knockoff (PC Centaurs are Medium Sized for no good reason).

In short an Ogre PC Species that has a +2 Str that results in an Ogre PC with 10-17 Str makes a difference even if this particular Ogre Barbarian has 14 Str (12+2) and is in a party with a Human Barbarian with 16 Str (15+1).

In short, yes even if we are talking about an Ogre character with 10 Str (8+2).

However I do feel like this works best when there is a significant advantage described by the narrative. The narrative has Ogres being really strong (matching the ludonarrative created by 19 Str vs the Human 11 Str). So it feels like a bigger deal to erase that feature (Sort of like erasing the Undead type from an Undead species). That is one of several reasons why I used a hypothetical Ogre PC species rather than a Orc species.

Was the tone intended? Dienekes's post was better, feel free to read my more in depth reply to them.

What ludonarrative are you proposing? Are you proposing the PC is an Ogre and Ogres don't have a tendency towards greater strength? Or are you proposing that unlike all other Ogres, all Ogre PCs don't have a tendency towards strength even in the form of a 10 Str? Both of those have ludonarrative dissonance which decreases the experience of playing a non human. As Psyren said (when talking about having a 16)

So I feel the +2 Str +1 any is a nice balance for a literal Giant. You get your 16 Int Ogre Magi and I get Strong Large Ogres instead of you having a 15 Int Ogre Magi or me getting Large Ogres that have no tendency towards being Strong.

However we don't need to find the right balance. I was listening to Psyren describe one experience and I was replying by adding on by describing another experience.

Oh there was no tone intended. I just don't really understand your reasoning. Is there a ludonarative that Ogres tend to be strong? Sure, but Ogres also aren't typically adventurers. This Ogre PC is an outlier and doesn't really follow what's normal for their race. As such, why should the Ogre PC have to have a +2 to Strength? Why can't an Ogre have lived near High Elves, and learned how to be more dexterous and studious, denoted by a +2 to Intelligence and a +1 Dexterity, and chosen to be a Bladesinger, since its no longer Racially restricted? Why does the Ogre PC have to start with a +2 in Strength when they have neglected such things all their life and focused purely on being smart and dexterous?

And even with an 8 Strength, that Ogre Wizard is still technically stronger than an average NPC if we look at carry capacity. A Large size creature doubles their carrying capacity, meaning an Ogre with an 8 Strength can carry as much as a Human with a 16 Strength. They're still Large, they're still strong, they're just weaker when compared to other members of their species which is a good thing. They're PCs, they're supposed to be the exception to the rule. They're supposed to be the ones that don't exactly follow that ludonarrative perfectly, because if they did then the Ogre PC wouldn't exist in the first place because Ogres don't really do adventure stuff.

[Dienekes]

This is where I fall. Racial traits and *gasp* FLUFF text provide plenty enough guidance for where to assign modifiers to be on-type. If you want to play off type, such as a Half-Orc wizard who spent his childhood hiding his nose in a book - how does it make sense they have higher than normal STR and CON? Why can't 1/10000 Half-Orcs be a genius? Most people won't pick Half-Orc Wizard because it's not an famous movie/novel/anime inspired choice and no matter the mods, Savage Attacks isn't doing much for a Wizard. So no matter the racial mods, Half-Orc Wizard still lets you be an edgelord who plays sub-optimal for the sake of RP. And if it matters to you that much, you can still put the bonuses in STR and CON to emphasize how off-type and special your Half-Orc Wizard is.

I also love all the people up in arms over power gaming when they insist the only defining characteristic of a Dwarf is their racial ability modifiers.

Point of order, IS a defining feature and IS THE ONLY defining feature are two different things. Dwarves are tough IS a defining feature. Dwarves also have a connection with stone that was gifted to their race by the dwarven gods, which id say is also a defining feature. Dwarves have a natural predilection toward craftsmanship is also a defining feature. Though that second one may be cultural. It’s kind of up in the air here.

A hypothetical Ogre PC species that has a +2 Str creates a ludonarrative that Ogres are strong. This matches the ludonarrative the Ogre stat block with 19 Str conveys. The matching ludonarratives helps reinforce another ludonarrative that the PC Ogre is also an Ogre rather than some knockoff (PC Centaurs are Medium Sized for no good reason).

In short an Ogre PC Species that has a +2 Str that results in an Ogre PC with 10-17 Str makes a difference even if this particular Ogre Barbarian has 14 Str (12+2) and is in a party with a Human Barbarian with 16 Str (15+1).

In short, yes even if we are talking about an Ogre character with 10 Str (8+2).

However I do feel like this works best when there is a significant advantage described by the narrative. The narrative has Ogres being really strong (matching the ludonarrative created by 19 Str vs the Human 11 Str). So it feels like a bigger deal to erase that feature (Sort of like erasing the Undead type from an Undead species). That is one of several reasons why I used a hypothetical Ogre PC species rather than a Orc species.

Hmm, if this works for you. Wonderful. But to me, all you’ve shown is that mathematically 10 > 8. Which, yes. That’s true. But I am asking in game, when you are playing and rolling dice. And your Ogre is standing next to the human fighter with 16 Strength, does that +2 Strength actually make you feel different. Like you are the Ogre and beside you is just a man

Personally I feel most of the 5E PC species (Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, for examples) are barely non human mechanically. This was an issue in other editions too and is one of the reason why my examples were Winged Humanoid with +2 Dex, Living construct with +2 Con, Yuan Ti with +2 Cha, and hypothetical literal giants with +2 Str.

A Dwarf could have been made to feel non human. However most of their features a cultural features and that makes me start to question if the D&D Dwarf's ability traits are cultural too (especially since some of them are cultural). All in all a 5E Dwarf feels like a demihuman to me.

Now someone could make a Dwarf species that brings forth the non human child of stone aspect. I think a +2 Con would be at home complementing and enhancing the other features such a species might have (damage reduction 1 from a stony skin for example).

This makes me think that fixed ability scores (in contrast to floating ones) work best when there are other features whose flavor they can reinforce.

Agreed with the first bit. 5e does a really bad job of making different races feel like actual different races. I think we just end up at a different point of it. 5e is so bad at making different races fee different that I’ve basically given up with it. In the end Tasha’s doesn’t actually bother me because all that was lost is something that the system was already terrible at.