Why do people hate Tasha’s?

[sithlordnergal]

Sanity Check: You do realize some consider that a small difference? Some expect or desire more divergence?

Now I realize I am a bit of an outlier with wanting things like Warforged, Undead, Myconoids, etc, however I can tell that Dienekes recongizes Elfs are still technically different from Humans. I can also tell Dienekes was using sarcasm to point out they were not satisfied with how little divergence there was between Elves and Humans.

Yeah, some people do consider it a small difference, but that's still enough of a difference to make them stand out from a normal Human. How much divergence do people want?

That said, Tasha's doesn't get rid of that though. Tasha's allows people to play an Elf with a +2 to Dex, +1 to whatever their Subrace is. You don't have to change what those stats are. 99% of elves can still be slender and graceful. Tasha's simply allows those who don't want to play a standard slender, graceful elf to do so without starting with a lower ability score. Because make no mistake, starting with that lower ability score does feel like a penalty.

[Chaos Jackal]

I like how "optimizing" and "powergaming" are thrown around in here as some sort of insult. Funny in a sad way, but expected; there are those who will forever refuse to accept that optimizing isn't exclusive with roleplaying, or theme, or fun.

First, one might indeed be having fun by just getting numbers high. It's their right, it's not going against the spirit of the game or anything of the kind. They might just like making and testing high-power builds and combinations. Who are you to deem the way they're playing wrong?

Second, optimizing and "powergaming" is quite often the very definition of roleplaying. This is D&D. People aren't playing some random working an office job 9 to 5, they're playing larger-than-life, exceptional characters. They're playing heroes. They're playing the strong mercenaries, the crafty assassins, the diligent scholars. They're playing those that would be known and trusted to defend the city, or slay the dragon, or lift the curse.

And making these characters really good at what they're doing is thematic. It's roleplaying. They're the greats, or they're gonna be. They're the best at what they do. And you might be able to detach that from the dice in your brains, but not everyone can. If I'm playing the person charged by the king to kill the dragon that abducted his daughter and I fail half my rolls on whatever it is I'm supposed to be good at, then it breaks my immersion. I'm supposed to be the expert. I'm supposed to be one of the best. Failing half the time is not and will never be "OK". I don't want the bare minimum. I want to actively show I was the best choice for the task the party was given; I want to have my rolls reflect my backstory as much as possible. We might be playing glorified make-believe, but as long as that make-believe has rules and mechanics in place the making will have to include them, and believing depends on a good making.

"Powergaming" can and often will be roleplaying. Saying that it isn't and using "powergaming" and "optimizing" as some derogatory term or presenting them as "wrong" is narrow-minded, insulting and hypocritical.

[OldTrees1]

I like how "optimizing" and "powergaming" are thrown around in here as some sort of insult. Funny in a sad way, but expected; there are those who will forever refuse to accept that optimizing isn't exclusive with roleplaying, or theme, or fun.

Um, where? No, seriously I have not seen it used once as an insult in this thread. Are you sure it was "thrown around as some sort of insult"?

Edit: Oh post 87 called it rubbish. My mistake. However after that it was a pointless argument about whether post 89 was technically self contradicting themselves. The term "powergaming" was not used as a insult to my understanding during that conversation.

[Witty Username]

Has racial ASIs not actually representing innate power beyond human been brought up yet.
All races cap at 20 anyway so orcs and dragonborn aren't actually stronger than buff human. The range isn't even all that different.
Elves having a higher maximum dex would allow for this but they don't.

[Thunderous Mojo]

DMs create and run the game, they don't play in it. DMs aren't players, they're not 'gamers.'

The Dungeon Master is a role within the game.
I've played in some games with creative power structures..I think we can agree strangebloke, you are describing one type of game from a myriad of possibilities.

Being a Forever DM, eventually led me to lose focus on what is fun from the player's perspective. When the last time you walked a mile in someone else's shoes was 20 years ago...essentially you are theorycrafting what is fun vis a vis the player perspective.

Being on the opposite side of the screen, gave me a fresher perspective.

The original statement I was replying to was along the lines of 'Tasha's opens up new options because previously if a race didn't have a bonus in a class' prime stat they were unplayable.'

I wouldn't call someone a power gamer who put their class' primary stat as their highest one and then after racial stat boost it became 16+.

It is being a power gamer to place a rule on themselves that they can only play a character who who has a 16+ in their main stat.

Is there something 'wrong' with a person wanting a 16 in their main stat?
(Especially, given how simple it is to achieve.)

Is a player insisting on a 16 the flip side of the same coin as the DM that insists that only they the DM can decide what elements are in the game?

Ultimately in either case, each has very rigidly defined set of conditions, necessary for them to pick up the dice.

While personally, I find rigid start conditions to be silly, what I desire out of an RPG isn't static for myself, it changes over time, and I suspect the same is probably true for others.

My experience is that conflict between the personalities of the participants of the game typically breaks the games, not the stats of a particular PC.

[OldTrees1]

Has racial ASIs not actually representing innate power of human been brought up yet.
All races cap at 20 anyway so orcs and dragonborn aren't actually stronger than buff human. The range isn't even all that different.
Elves having a higher maximum dex would allow for this but they don't.

A1: I did mention many ability score modifiers felt more like cultural modifiers (High Elf +1 Int was my example) rather than what you would describe as innate. Or did you mean that human is better represented with features instead of modifiers. That second one has not been mentioned yet this thread.
A2: I don't think anyone raised a position yet (in this thread) that would have the cap be relevant. Conversation seems to be about level 1. I think one person mentioned a 14 would take 4 more levels to reach 20, but even then it did not seem relevant to reiterate the 20 cap for PCs.
A3: Higher maximums was not discussed yet in this thread, but was discussed in the 8 locked threads around Tashas' release. If memory was served every suggestion was controversial in those threads.

[Anymage]

Has racial ASIs not actually representing innate power beyond human been brought up yet.
All races cap at 20 anyway so orcs and dragonborn aren't actually stronger than buff human. The range isn't even all that different.
Elves having a higher maximum dex would allow for this but they don't.

That 14 or 15 would need to wait until level 12 until it hit 20 and caught up with the guy who started with a 16. A bit earlier for fighters or rogues, but still well into their careers and reaching the point when many campaigns peter out. That's -1 on your key combat rolls for a good chunk of your career if not all of it. Until and unless they let people hit the stat cap sooner (which would be stat inflation issues all on its own), I understand the desire to have a starting 16 be baseline.

[Witty Username]

Cool, just wanted to check in on that, the thread doubled in size since I last looked at it and the several other discussions make it hard to keep track of what has and hasn't been brought up.
@Anymage that is much less consistent if rolled stats are used, it tends to obliterate the differences by race from my experience.

[tokek]

OK I'm going to give a very meta answer.

There are some people generally - and definitely on these forums - who have strong opinions regarding the balance of choice between the DM and the players. Some of those hold strong opinions that things should be in the player's hands and that mechanisms outside of the class / race benefits such as boons, magic items etc to fill out a character are 'bad' because the DM has a role in them. Conversely there are those that see more player choice as more opportunity for abuse which is hard for a DM to say no to because its a class or race feature. This second group feel very uncomfortable about the racial rules changes in Tashas in particular - but also may feel uncomfortable about a few of the sub-classes there which are pretty potent. The first group probably want more things like Tashas which put more choices and control in the hands of the players but of course they are not the ones disparaging Tashas with the comments that you noticed.

[JackPhoenix]

Your bar is low, but powergaming is relative to the game being played. If D&D is trivial, than trivially making a character is not powergaming - it's the default mode of character creation. Powergaming - by definition - can only occur if you go out of your way to make it happen.

And if you'd rather scrap a character concept and play a different race just because the different race has a + to your primary stat, you're going out of your way to make "it" happen. If you're not a powergamer and just want to play a half-orc wizard, you don't care if they have bonus to Int or not.

[Captbrannigan]

I want races to go way the other direction where an Elven Barbarian plays mechanically different than a Dwarven Barbarian or a Human Barbarian or an Orc Barbarian. Wildly beautifully different.

I think we have different preconceptions of what an Elf is. I think of Elves as described by Tolkien, Warhammer, or Warcraft. Elves that amount to "wildly beautifully different" from long lived, pointy eared humans wouldn't be "Elves" anymore. All the humanoid races are.. humanoid. If you want to play something wildly different from human, I would suggest looking at a different game as every single PC race amounts to human + features (wings, construct body, fire breath, pointy ears). The rules don't allow you to play as anything wildly different and non-humanoid like a Turkey or an Ooze.

An Elven Barbarian can't be put into magical slumber, an iconic and significant mechanical threat to other Barbarians. A Dwarven Barbarian is 4" tall and has a reduced movement speed, so compared to a human Barbarian they mechanically can't reach the cookie jar or move as far in a turn and could find themselves out of range to use their primary ability, Hit Thing Hard. A Half-Orc Barbarian can resist a death blow and stay on their feet at 1 HP once per long rest, instead of mechanically dying.

I want an elf to actually mechanically feel like someone touched with the grace of Seldarine. I want mechanics to show what living 700 years does to a mortal mind.

Elves have two paragraphs detailing how living 700 years would affect them. It is summarized in the racial traits section. It is mechanically a part of their identity. If you and your DM don't use that for role play characterization, it's the same as your DM never attempting to charm you and "wasting" your racial trait of advantage on charm saves. That's not the fault of the game mechanics as described, that's a personal problem between you and your DM.

Your character race not only affects your ability scores and traits, but also provides cues for building your character's story... These details are suggestions to help you think about your character; adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their race.

The norm for Elves is that they don't have facial hair, are slender and graceful, favor elegant clothing in bright colors, are slow to make friends, and are reluctant to resort to violence. By RAW, you can already discard any of these traits if they don't fit your character concept. For instance, an Elven Ranger doesn't have to wear bright colored frilly shirts in the woods and an Elven Barbarian can fly into a rage in combat.

Tasha's simply expands that to include ability scores and traits because "a typical character race in D&D includes little or no choice - a lack that can make it difficult to realize certain character concepts." "This increase [in CON] doesn't apply to every dwarf, just to dwarf adventurers, and it exists to reinforce an archetype. That reinforcement is appropriate if you want to lean into the archetype, but it's unhelpful if your character doesn't conform to the archetype."

All of these suggestions are optional, you can decide that Elven proficiency in Perception doesn't fit your character due to different culture or training without changing what languages they speak or ability scores.

[Cheesegear]

If D&D is trivial, than trivially making a character is not powergaming - it's the default mode of character creation. Powergaming - by definition - can only occur if you go out of your way to make it happen.

The prevailing defense is that [Species] can't be played with [Class] because the ASIs don't match, and that's bad. People are going out of their to deliberately not play characters they have 'fun' ideas for, because those 'fun' ideas, in their opinion, are not mechanically good.

That is going out of your way to get a 16 in your main stat.

We've already established that it's literally impossible for the weakest race in the game to not meet that definition. Your definition just plain doesn't work, my friend.

I really feel like we're going around in circles.

The game only asks that you have a 14 in your class' main stat. Anything above a 14, at Level 1, isn't necessary.
It is trivially easy to get a 16(+) in your main stat, at level 1. But you still don't need it. Why would you want a 16(+) in your main stat, if you don't actually need it? Right. Power-gaming. Gotta eke out that +5% on the d20.

Straight off the bat, anything you create is more than the (default) game asks you to have:
- The game is more-or-less balanced around you having a 14.
- You can get 16+ pretty easily.
Don't cancel each other out. It's almost impossible to make a bad character, if you even slightly know what you're doing. Nearly all characters, by default, are not just competent. But good, because what the game asks of you, is to have a 14, which you can get extremely easily. Great. Now that we know you're over 14, at Level 1, and will only get higher from there, your DM can actually throw Deadly*2/3/4 encounters at you, and you'll survive, because you're way stronger than the game expects. But that's up to your DM. If you want to start an arms race, that's up to you. I hate arms races (because the DM always wins). But that's me.

Now that we know that we can't have a bad character if our main stat is 14 or higher, what happens to the Half-Orc Wizard?

When you play off-type, you can still have a 14 in your main stat. Playing off-type doesn't make your character bad. 14 is competent. I don't know what to tell you.

Alright. Now that we know that our Half-Orc Wizard still gets a 14 Int, which makes him playable, and competent, what's wrong with playing this character, on the player's side? Nothing. Nothing at all. There is no reason at all that you can't play a Half-Orc Wizard and still participate in the game, with 14 Int, because that's all the game really wants you to have. Half-Orcs are not penalised for being Wizards. Or Rogues. Or Warlocks...Or anything.

Unless

Other players at your table are power-gaming, and you don't want to fall behind and/or get left out. When everyone at your table has a 16 in their main stat, except you, what happens? I can't answer that for you because I don't know your table. At my table, with all my 14-stat characters? Nothing happens. I fail skill checks and attacks rolls 5% more than I normally would, enemies pass their Saving Throws 5% more. I do 1 less damage per attack. How dreadful. I sure hope my friends don't hate me because I wanted to play a character instead of a spreadsheet.
(I mean if your friends at your table do make fun of you because you fail 5% more often...Well, ****. Sorry.)

But I also know that D&D has scaling difficulty. Having more powerful characters doesn't change anything because your DM just throws more powerful creatures at you, putting you back to square one. There are even published modules that make you fight Dragons at Level 1. The DM always wins, if they want to. So power-gaming is a waste of time because your DM is the one who gets to choose what you go up against.

[Captbrannigan]

A 5% difference is both trivial and power gaming to pursue.

I agree that changing your character concept just for a 5% difference would be power gaming. However, that's not the whole story. A first level Wizard with 14 INT can prepare 3 spells, while one with 16 can prepare 4. I'm no mathematician, but that's more than a 5% increase. In fact, that let's you cast a spell in every encounter on average instead of relying on cantrips for 1/4 to 1/3 of encounters (3 spells for 4-5 encounters). That isn't the case for a Battlemaster, they get the same amount of maneuvers to use regardless of stats. Plus, as already throughly explained AC and Saving Throws do not scale at the same speed so while 14 STR doesn't make or break a Fighter, 14 INT does break a Wizard. Maybe break is a bit strong, but it carries more impact over the course of a campaign for a caster than a warrior.

Furthermore, if that 5% difference was trivial - why are you spending so much time and energy arguing against it?

[Cheesegear]

Furthermore, if that 5% difference was trivial - why are you spending so much time and energy arguing against it?

I type fast and am doing other things.
I'm not spending as much time nor energy on this as you might think.

[Witty Username]

Why is wanting a 16 in a stat powergaming but wanting a 14 in a stat not powergaming, both involve making decisions to have a more effective character?


As for stat difference for characters, it depends on the class, fighters, wizards, clerics, etc. do generally fine. paladin gets freaky, ranger could have issues, monk feels really bad if you have 14/14 dex/wis.

[Dienekes]

I think we have different preconceptions of what an Elf is. Most people think of Elves as described by Tolkien, Warhammer, or Warcraft. Elves that amount to "wildly beautifully different" from long lived, pointy eared humans wouldn't be "Elves" anymore. All the humanoid races are.. humanoid. If you want to play something wildly different from human, I would suggest looking at a different game as every single PC race amounts to human + features (wings, construct body, fire breath, pointy ears). The rules don't allow you to play as anything wildly different and non-humanoid like a Turkey or an Ooze.

Tolkien is literally the origin of elves being portrayed as all slender and graceful and had nothing about lacking sleep for the record.* Don’t know Warhammer beyond Vermintide, but there the elf was the fastest most agile member who had several subclasses about dancing around combat not being hit. And as to Warcraft the art design definitely had the elves as thinner and less stocky than humans. At least when I played. Maybe that’s changed in the last decade.

But elves being slender, agile, and graceful have definitely been more predominant in fantasy media than difficult to charm or doesn’t sleep.

To the point I would draw a challenge. Go to general fantasy nerd and ask “which features do you correlate with fantasy elves?”

List doesn’t sleep, agile and graceful, difficult to mind control, sees in the dark, and unnatural beauty.

I’m going to guess unnatural beauty and agile and graceful would take up the highest slots. Hell, those are even directly stated or eluded to in the D&D elves description. If those make up the foundation of a race, they should be portrayed mechanically.

An Elven Barbarian can't be put into magical slumber, an iconic and significant mechanical threat to other Barbarians. A Dwarven Barbarian is 4" tall and has a reduced movement speed owing to that, so compared to a human Barbarian they mechanically can't move as far in a turn and likely find themselves out of range to use their primary ability, Hit Thing Hard. A Half-Orc Barbarian can resist a death blow and stay on their feet at 1 HP once per long rest, instead of mechanically dying.

Those are mechanics, yes. But I’m not seeing anything about the elves natural agility or the dwarves natural toughness in them. Which are a distinct part of the races fantasy. And again, some of these effects are pretty tame and kinda dull. The half-Orc resisting death aint bad though.

Elves have two paragraphs detailing how living 700 years would affect them. It is summarized in the racial traits section. It is mechanically a part of their identity. If you and your DM don't use that for role play characterization, it's the same as your DM never attempting to charm you and "wasting" your racial trait of advantage on charm saves. That's not the fault of the game mechanics as described, that's a personal problem between you and your DM.

That is not a mechanic my guy. That’s fluff. Which admittedly is important for contextualizing mechanics. It’s the reason why Savage Attacker as a simple name infuses what amounts to a bit of extra damage into something other than being a highly trained warrior skilled at placing strikes exactly where you mean to. You definitely could fluff the exact same mechanic like that, but they didn’t. It’s a Savage Attacker indicating a wild aggression with only a name. Very useful skill to have, matching and contextualizing the mechanics with the fluff.

There is no set gameplay for it other than what the players choose to infuse into it.

To best demonstrate the difference, see a game like Burning Wheel where the length of an Elf’s life actually has effects on how the player can play the character. It directly effects gameplay and makes elves feel like a different species. It’s a good game. I kinda wish D&D had stolen some things from it.

*I suppose you could instead draw it back to the Sidhe.

[Pex]

Yeah, some people do consider it a small difference, but that's still enough of a difference to make them stand out from a normal Human. How much divergence do people want?

That said, Tasha's doesn't get rid of that though. Tasha's allows people to play an Elf with a +2 to Dex, +1 to whatever their Subrace is. You don't have to change what those stats are. 99% of elves can still be slender and graceful. Tasha's simply allows those who don't want to play a standard slender, graceful elf to do so without starting with a lower ability score. Because make no mistake, starting with that lower ability score does feel like a penalty.

That's the price of playing an elf. You get certain benefits, but that doesn't mean you must get everything. Darkvision, Perception proficiency, advantage on saving throws against being charmed, immune to magical sleep, 4 hour long rest, and a cantrip and weapon proficiency perhaps such as being a high elf is not enough for you? If getting a 16 in the right ability score is more important to you, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with having that priority, then pick a race that gives that benefit.

Non sequitur: I am pleased they got rid of racial ability score penalties that existed in previous editions. That was too high a price.

Unless

Other players at your table are power-gaming, and you don't want to fall behind and/or get left out. When everyone at your table has a 16 in their main stat, except you, what happens? I can't answer that for you because I don't know your table. At my table, with all my 14-stat characters? Nothing happens. I fail skill checks and attacks rolls 5% more than I normally would, enemies pass their Saving Throws 5% more. I do 1 less damage per attack. How dreadful. I sure hope my friends don't hate me because I wanted to play a character instead of a spreadsheet.
(I mean if your friends at your table do make fun of you because you fail 5% more often...Well, ****. Sorry.)

But I also know that D&D has scaling difficulty. Having more powerful characters doesn't change anything because your DM just throws more powerful creatures at you, putting you back to square one. There are even published modules that make you fight Dragons at Level 1. The DM always wins, if they want to. So power-gaming is a waste of time because your DM is the one who gets to choose what you go up against.

That, right there, is where you lose the argument. That derogatory statement against players who want to have a 16 in their prime stat. That is telling players who want a 16 are playing the game wrong not caring about playing a character. The rest of your message made a good case of 14 being fine, but once you imply 14 good, 16 bad you're dismissing the playstyles of those who don't play your way.

[OldTrees1]

Why is wanting a 16 in a stat powergaming but wanting a 14 in a stat not powergaming, both involve making decisions to have a more effective character?


As for stat difference for characters, it depends on the class, fighters, wizards, clerics, etc. do generally fine. paladin gets freaky, ranger could have issues, monk feels really bad if you have 14/14 dex/wis.

Point of clarification, side A is saying:
If not having a 16 is enough to make you avoid playing a species, then you are putting having a 16 as more important that your choice in species. (There is a hidden assumption of point buy or standard array of course).

Side A's claim does not impact someone wanting a 14 because point buy and standard array can achieve 15/14 as primary and secondary without discounting any species. So an insistence on having a 14 would not result in avoiding a species.

[Pex]

As for competence, it fully depends on what you're playing. If you're playing a martial character, then a 14 in your primary stat is perfectly fine. AC scales slowly while attack bonuses scale quickly. The highest AC in the game is a 25, on a CR 30 creature, but by the time you face that you'd have a base attack bonus of +8 with a 14 in your primary attack stat. And that +8 can be increased via spells and abilities like Bless and the Magic Weapon spell. You can boost that +8 to a +11, lowering the number you need to roll from a 17 to a 14, and add in the d4 from bless, and you end up needing to roll about an 11.5 on a d20. That is very slightly above average, but well within the range of possibility.

Now compare that to a saving throw. With a 14 in your primary stat, your save is going to be a DC 17. Same creature with the 25 AC has a +9 to Wisdom and Charisma saves, a +10 to Con and Str saves, and a +0 for the rest. In order to succeed on that Wisdom save, which most spells use a Wisdom save, they need to roll a 9 or higher. That is well below the average roll of a d20, which means this creature is going to succeed on a majority of those saves. Now you can make the argument of just target a different ability, but here's the issue. Most of the really, really good spells in the game target Dexterity or Wisdom. And Wisdom is used for nearly all of the spells that have a major, debilitating effect.

Now obviously that is the most extreme example, but things really don't change, no matter which way you look at it. If you're primarily playing a caster without a 16 in your casting stat, you're going to find your spells work a little less than half the time all the way until you hit level 8. And by then, most campaigns are finished. Tell me, about how many players do you think will find that experience to be fun? When a little over half the time their spells simply fail?

Thank you for this. It clears up my own issue of the matter. I've seen it in play where the PC with only a 14 or 15 in their prime stat keeps failing, and now I'm realizing that's been the casters. The warriors with 14 or 15 are doing alright because the ACs of the bad guys aren't that high. Also contributing is it's easy for them to get a plus or advantage to their attack, but the caster cannot increase his DC until he uses an ASI for it or his proficiency increases. He's lucky to get a magic item for it if that ever happens. At best maybe the cleric will cast Bane, if it lands when the cleric has 14 WI.

I still believe warriors need to increase their attack stat as the levels progress, but maybe I can be more lenient in my perspective for starting with a 14 or 15.

[OldTrees1]

Why is wanting a 16 in a stat powergaming but wanting a 14 in a stat not powergaming, both involve making decisions to have a more effective character?


As for stat difference for characters, it depends on the class, fighters, wizards, clerics, etc. do generally fine. paladin gets freaky, ranger could have issues, monk feels really bad if you have 14/14 dex/wis.

Point of clarification, side A is saying:
If not having a 16 is enough to make you avoid playing a species, then you are putting having a 16 as more important that your choice in species. (There is a hidden assumption of point buy or standard array of course).

Side A's claim does not impact someone wanting a 14 because point buy and standard array can achieve 15/14 as primary and secondary without discounting any species. So an insistence on having a 14 would not result in avoiding a species.

Non sequitur: I am pleased they got rid of racial ability score penalties that existed in previous editions. That was too high a price.

I miss the option to have lower scores without self nerfing. It also meant there were stories "this species of avian is more fragile and less hardy than humans" that were harder to tell. (Although WotC did not have a good track record with them)

I think removing them in 5E was the right move, but point buy should have started with scores of 6 to compensate.

you're dismissing the playstyles of those who don't play your way.

Thank you. While the whole argument about whether post 89 technically had a self contradiction is a bit pointless, and trivial, it does not need to resort to dismissing those that do insist on a 16.

A better way to phrase what Cheesegear could have said would be:
"Your friends will not kick you out of the group merely because you chose a race that did not get a 16."

[ad_hoc]

A distinct difference. (No judgment intended.) I would add there is nothing wrong with being a power gamer. However, there is that line where power gaming becomes cheesy which is another way of saying being a munchkin. The Tasha ability score rules facilitates munchkinism, and that is what ticks some people off. That is where you get mountain dwarf wizards. It is certainly possible a non-munchkin player really wants to play a mountain dwarf wizard for generic gaming community socially acceptable reasons, but because of the game mechanics involved the "reek" of munchkinism taints the idea. This is also where Custom Lineage comes in. A character's race is just flavor text. All that matters is getting the pluses in the right place. Optimization/Power gaming is not in itself a bad thing. People get angst about it when it's too easy to get anything/everything you want.

Yeah, something that got lost in the discussion is that the original poster I was replying to claimed they weren't a power gamer and I disagreed. I didn't say it was wrong or bad to be a power gamer.

It's an important distinction because people will casually say things like 'Tasha's opens up possibilities of race and class combinations' as though it was just a fact when those possibilities were always there for most people. It just opens up different options for power gamers (and closes off other options). And then like you said also facilitates munchkinism of min/maxing off theme combinations.

The base game racial ASIs encourage thematic pairings of races and classes while still allowing for completely good characters when playing against type.

[sithlordnergal]

And if you'd rather scrap a character concept and play a different race just because the different race has a + to your primary stat, you're going out of your way to make "it" happen. If you're not a powergamer and just want to play a half-orc wizard, you don't care if they have bonus to Int or not.

I've done that in the past, with a Half-Orc Cleric. It was the single most unsatisfying full caster I ever played because my save based spells failed a little over half the time, and they usually failed by rolling exactly what my DC was. My DM rolled openly for all to see, so I could see exactly how much they succeeded by. That -1 to my save DC crippled my ability to contribute outside of hitting things and casting Bless on the party.

I eventually threw out the character and brought in a more optimized Paladin because I got tired of my Channel Divinity and Save based spells constantly failing. I could certainly hit things, Sacred Weapon and Guiding Bolt worked wonders. But if I had wanted to make nothing but attack rolls, I wouldn't have been playing a Cleric

Edit: I also saw a similar thing happen to a Bard. They played a homebrewed Lamia Bard. Their race had +2 Strength and +1 Con I believe. Their spells constantly and consistently failed a little over half the time until they got an 18 Charisma.

Having their spells fail was not fun. And despite it being a flavorful and fun character to rp, they HATED that half the time they just couldn't meaningfully contribute to situations because their spells simply didn't work

[Witty Username]

Side A's claim does not impact someone wanting a 14 because point buy and standard array can achieve 15/14 as primary and secondary without discounting any species. So an insistence on having a 14 would not result in avoiding a species.

I take it we will be ignoring Kobold and Orc for this conversation because they are outliers.

[Amechra]

I take it we will be ignoring Kobold and Orc for this conversation because they are outliers.

They also were errata'd to not have the penalty anymore.

[Just Helping]

Non sequitur: I am pleased they got rid of racial ability score penalties that existed in previous editions. That was too high a price.

What makes a 13 starting cap too high of a starting price, but a 15 just fine?

[Witty Username]

They also were errata'd to not have the penalty anymore.

Neat, good riddance to bad rubbish.

[strangebloke]

What makes a 12 starting cap too high of a starting price, but a 14 just fine?

Due to cognitive biases, penalties are usually weighed about twice as heavily by humans. And tbf, the proportional loss of damage does increase as you give more -1's to your main stat.

Nonetheless, for every class that isn't a monk, a 12 is plenty to start with, speaking from my own experience. I've had lots of fun with such characters. But I think the cognitive bias is reason enough to avoid that.

[Amechra]

Ironically, I think Monks can be great with terrible stats... if you play them nothing like a Monk. I think that "my Dexterity and Wisdom are both 14" is the one time that those weirdos who want to put armor on their Monk have the right idea.

Like, normally? A Monk with "optimal" stats that decides to wear armor gets a net AC bonus of... +0. Even if you add a shield, they're looking at netting a +2 to AC in exchange for more-or-less jettisoning their core combat features. A Monk with bad stats, however, is looking at +2-+4 AC from doing this. And, if everyone is in the "bad stats" boat, features like Patient Defense or Focused Aim are straight-up bonkers.

(I'll be honest, I kinda hate that I've found a use-case for armored monks )

[Pex]

What makes a 13 starting cap too high of a starting price, but a 15 just fine?

Using point buy meant wasting points since despite the +2 the higher the starting value the more build points it cost to be one ability score point higher. Some players are ok now playing a race with 14 or 15 in their prime despite no plus. No one played a race where the prime occurred at the minus number. Every +1 matters in Bounded Accuracy, but they also mattered when there was no Bounded Accuracy. In 5E +1s are to be monitored to avoid overpowering the system. Pre 5E you need +1s just to keep up. Can't speak for 4E. In 3E spell DCs were based on spell level and ability score, so even that -1 more meant your spells will fail plus lack of a bonus spell slot. Bad guy ACs skyrocketed. Even full BAB classes needed to max out to keep up. In 2E it meant lack of bonus spell slots as well as harder to hit monster ACs. Having less than 16 in your prime meant no bonus XP. Classes had ability score prerequisites. Not every fighter was lucky to get 18/percentile strength for extra bonuses, but if you got a minus to strength it meant you definitely weren't going to get it. For wizards it meant less spells known per level and less percentage chance of learning a spell, having to wait until you gain a level to try again. Yes, racial penalties were a big deal.

[Zhorn]

I've done that in the past, with a Half-Orc Cleric. It was the single most unsatisfying full caster I ever played because my save based spells failed a little over half the time, and they usually failed by rolling exactly what my DC was.
...
That -1 to my save DC crippled my ability to contribute outside of hitting things and casting Bless on the party.
...
Edit: I also saw a similar thing happen to a Bard. They played a homebrewed Lamia Bard.
...
Their spells constantly and consistently failed a little over half the time until they got an 18 Charisma.

... were you intentionally using saves that the enemy way good at? Or was the DM buffing creatures to have better saving throws?
I don't mean this as a callout against you, but failing more than half the time sound like you were attacking an enemy's strength as opposed to their weakness.

If you come across something with a strong save (and since your DM rolled openly, you're able to tell what their modifiers are pretty easily), pick something else to roll against.

Clerics having the ability to swap out their spells each day gives you a lot of freedom in what saving throws you want to focus on - Dex, Con, Wis or Cha - and unless you're in the higher tiers of play you'll not be facing foes good at all of them. Don't pigeonhole yourself with only attacking a single stat.

Assuming tier 1 before the first ASI, 14 Wis (+2), you have a spell DC of 12.
An enemy with a 10 (+0) and no save proficiency will fail that saving throw 55% of the time.
That's equivalent of attacking a foe with an AC of 14 using the same modifiers. pretty standard target values for that level.
The odds of your spell landing are in your favour until you start targeting an area the enemy is strong in.

Since your attack rolls were landing, I'm inclined to believe either you were targeting strengths, or to build off strangebloke's quote

Due to cognitive biases, penalties are usually weighed about twice as heavily by humans.

You were paying more attention to when the spells failed in your recollection vs how often they succeeded.