Please explain to me why the Tasha's rules aren't optional?

[Pex]

Some races have advantages over others. Some old, and all new races have flexible ASIs. Some people will no longer chose human. Sources may go out of print (They are still supported). Having races with floating ASIs does not force you to use those races (just as they did not before).

But that does not change anything i said before. It is still optional. You can remove Tasha's from existence all together and this is all still the same and the game still works together.

It's just changing. You don't like the change. That's fine. It doesn't stop it from being an optional source book with optional rules.

"Races with flexible ASIs" is not the same thing as "Tasha's".

If you cannot see the difference I truly do not care. I'm not going to spend any more time on this thread. It's all in the original post. Tasha's is optional.

The lasting impact and changes in design which started after that do not change the fact that you can play all the other books without tasha's.

I never said anything about liking the rule or not. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. Tasha lied about it being optional. The choice is being taken away. It's not about the specific races with flexible ASIs. It's about since that's the only way of doing things from now on means floating ASI is the new norm. There is no option to choose fixed ASI or floating ASi with them. You must use floating ASI. They are also changing previous work. That is relevant. They are taking away fixed ASI from previous work. They are making floating ASI mandatory for those races. You are stuck in the pedantry that it's optional as to whether you play 5E at all.

[Hytheter]

I'll never understand why they didn't just add ASIs on new races for those who prefer to colour within the lines. For the low cost of a line of text per race they could have pleased everybody, or at least mitigated a lot of the grumbling about floating ASIs becoming standard.

"When you're DM you can choose what books we use, please DM for a change so we can use this book you bought"

"I want to use these player options."
"You should DM, then."

I do agree that players should try to pick up the GMing slack from time to time, but I doubt many will find this reason compelling.

[Dork_Forge]

I’m not exactly sure how bringing up a perspective, invalidates the topic as a whole, especially given, I have expressly acknowledged the emotional pain that some are feeling as a result of the paradigm change.

When you take any topic to such an existential point, it trivialises it by the very nature of the perspective you're using. Given that it's a thread specifically about the topic, on a forum specifically for the game, the existential perspective is the odd one out IMO.

And for the record, I'm not seeing where in the post I replied to that you acknowledged that at all, and even if you did so in a previous post, it would be valuable to recognise it alongside providing such a dwarfing perspective.

So let’s talk about that! Outside of perhaps, altering your job satisfaction due to changes you do not favor in the ruleset, what impact do you expect to find, or have found in your earning potential as a result the paradigm shift?

To provide context, I am a paid DM and a freelance 5E content creator.

Earning potential the easiest thing is:

Monsters of the Multiverse is a mandatory expense. There is no way around that for me like there is for other books. It doesn't really matter if I buy that Critical Role book that just came out at some point, for instance.

However, I write and maintain class guides as part of my regular workflow, necessitating the book (and resulting in a stand-alone section for those race entries). It also vastly complicates the current dynamics of the game in a way that race releases don't usually do, suddenly any article topic that results in me needing to create a build or suggest a race now requires far more time doing the stuff I don't get paid for (research and development). This means that I either eat a bunch of unpaid time upfront, or write lower value articles in the meantime to maintain cash flow.

Other general things outside of my satisfaction:

- It's controversial and presents a potential flashpoint between paying players. The DM-Player dynamic is far more complicated when it's not just your personal enjoyment involved.

- It creates new kinds of problems that I need to come up with solutions for, like what happens to the entries for Volo's and Tome in the curated list of all 5E material I'm responsible for? How do I present and rate these new race entries in a rating system built on the perspective of the old paradigm, that still needs to account for it? And so on.

Besides my personal feels, which is all I've presented up until this post, it does actually complicate my work and directly harm cash flow. Another example, I don't own digital copies of Volos and Tome, nor could I afford to before they're yanked, which means I have to reference paper on the matter indefinitely now. That is a cramp in my work flow, to put it lightly, that was artificially created by them yanking books.

I had no way to anticipate this as an expense, and despite how some people love pointing out older editions for books that apparently have done similar things (Saying Tome of Battle explains literally nothing to people that don't already know about it for those posters reading this, this isn't an older edition. This isn't the 70s,80s,90s or even the 00s. Digital is a significant part of 5E as a global sensation, particularly with an ongoing pandemic in the mix.) there was no valid warning signs about any of this apart from a rumour that wasn't validated until it was too late.

[Thunderous Mojo]

When you take any topic to such an existential point, it trivialises it by the very nature of the perspective you're using. Given that it's a thread specifically about the topic, on a forum specifically for the game, the existential perspective is the odd one out IMO.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has demonstrated the salutary benefits of pausing and asking the question “is it worth it to get worked up over something”.

Sure, looking at the big picture of life on a D&D message board is going to be a minority of posts…..perhaps this in part explains why things seem tense in the Playground.

Too much Fight or Flight…not enough Peace, Love and Understanding…and beer.

And for the record, I'm not seeing where in the post I replied to that you acknowledged that at all, and even if you did so in a previous post, it would be valuable to recognise it alongside providing such a dwarfing perspective.

Post #71, on page 3….One page back.
I respect you Dork_Forge, but I am not going to constantly cross reference prior posts or provide links to prior posts on the off chance someone missed something.

Thank you for sharing your insight on the difficulties new books pose for professional DMs.

Be Well, Good Luck, and Good Gaming to you!

[Azuresun]

WotC was abundantly clear the paradigm shift was specifically *because* of the public's reaction to their work, though.

I do wonder how much of this could have been avoided if VgtM Orcs had just not had that damn INT penalty. 90% of the kerfluffle seems to be about Orcs, Drow and the Intelligence score.

[Damon_Tor]

I'll never understand why they didn't just add ASIs on new races for those who prefer to colour within the lines.

{Scrubbed}

[Zhorn]

{Scrubbed}

[Havrik]

I generally think fixed ASIs make sense from a worldbuilding perspective, i.e., a dwarf on average is going to be hardier on average than an elf, who in term will on average be more graceful. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the elf that rolled an 18 and put it in Constitution. But it's not really a hill I'd care to die on. Really, if they are going this route, they should just drop racial ASIs entirely and just tweak the math to make it work (bump up the proficiency bonus maybe).

But, one way or another they will need to adjust the races that were balanced with ASIs in mind, like mountain dwarfs who get +4 in return for fewer racial features, and especially humans, who got +1 to every stat in return for no racial features, basically. Maybe I'm a bit "old school" but it is already hard enough to justify and maintain the tone of a human-centric world like the Forgotten Realms when the party looks like the Mos Eisley cantina. It's only going to be worse when the only thing going for humans mechanically (the stat flexibility) has been given to every race. And if you allow the custom lineage from Tasha's, even the variant human is obsolete. (I guess the variant human is now essentially a specific implementation of the custom lineage, although you can no longer add +1 to two ability scores.)

I'll withhold judgment on things until the revised PHB in 2024 I suppose. It would have been nicer if they had just offered suggested default ASIs for the new races.

[Psyren]

If you want fixed ASIs for the new races you can easily do that, just work with your DM.
And if you can't come to a consensus on what those fixed ASIs should be for a given race, that just further proves the point that the concept was outmoded.

I generally think fixed ASIs make sense from a worldbuilding perspective, i.e., a dwarf on average is going to be hardier on average than an elf, who in term will on average be more graceful. Of course there are exceptions, but that's the elf that rolled an 18 and put it in Constitution.

From a worldbuilding perspective, it's fine to want the average dwarf to be hardier than the average elf. The DM can easily represent these sorts of tendency by tweaking NPC statblocks in their world.

The issue is that PC adventurers are not (and never were) intended to be "average" members of their given races, and therefore what is "average" should not be a shackle for them. Thus if you want to play as a graceful dwarf or a hardy elf or a brilliant orc or a muscular halfling, the updated design lets you do that without implying that you're somehow wrong for doing so.

[Havrik]

The issue is that PC adventurers are not (and never were) intended to be "average" members of their given races, and therefore what is "average" should not be a shackle for them. Thus if you want to play as a graceful dwarf or a hardy elf or a brilliant orc or a muscular halfling, the updated design lets you do that without implying that you're somehow wrong for doing so.

Well, the argument is that a graceful dwarf rolled an 18 and put it Dexterity (or the 15 from the standard array, etc.), the elf in Constitution (as in my example) the orc in Intelligence, the halfling in Strength, etc.

The point is that even if the graceful dwarf put their "dump stat" in Constitution (let's say it was 8 from the standard array), it becomes a 10 because even a frail dwarf is hardy by the standards of most other playable races. To me, that is interesting and valuable worldbuilding.

It seems like what this comes down to is that a lot of people (including the game developers?) believe that a character is unplayable if they only have a +2 in their main ability rather than +3. But I have always rolled my character stats (apart from a few one shots that used the standard array), so I've never felt I was guaranteed of having the +3, even if I was playing the "right" race for my class.

[Segev]

I think it is telling that one of the dismissive "it is optional, so shut up" responses is that you're not required to use any of the new content.

"It is optional; you can just refrain from buying any more books, because this optional content is present in all of the new ones, and you're Ridiculous for observing that."

Also, no, there would be no need to reprint TCE's rules for floating ASIs in every new book even if they made no mention of them and gave fixed ASIs to each new or reprinted race: TCE exists, so you can use its optional rule with any other content you like.

That is how optional content works.

When you have a rule that lets you ignore restrictions, that works without having to print everything to point out that the restrictions are now optional. B when you also remove any support for the rules that existed before with new content, you're fibbing when you claim the optional restriction-removal is ill optional.

It is like Apple saying you still have the option to use a standard headphone jack on iphones with the implication that this doesn't represent a change going forward, just because if you have an older model iphone you still have the option.

The "it is optional" claim was a defense made by the "stop complaining about it" crowd to claim it wasn't a change to the way races are designed and meant to be played. You can hold up technicalities about how it's not changing things in home games that use no new content all you like, but it still is deceptive to claim that the rule is "optional" the way it was initially asserted.

Pretty much every point made by those saying they don't like it and didn't like what it represented going forward has been born out, and the allegation that it was not deceptive and was and is "optional" because you can just keep playing without using new content missing the point of those pointing out that "it is optional" was a dishonest claim when you take into account what the claim was actually used to argue.

It was used to argue that future races wouldn't be representative of the TCE change, and that is obviously untrue.

If it were optional, new races and everything in the new book would have fixed ASIs, and the exceptions would be treated as exceptional for the exception. TCE's optional rule would still be there, as an option. Instead, it has become baked into every race, including new printings of older ones, and there is no option nor guidance for using the old paradigm.

It is "optional" in the same sense that it is "optional" to pay your taxes in futurama. Your other option being an intimate visit with the pain monster, but paying your taxes is optional!

[Amnestic]

It was used to argue that future races wouldn't be representative of the TCE change, and that is obviously untrue.

Okay but why does that matter to you so much?

Wizards said one thing and then changed their mind, presumably in the face of positive reception (for if it was negative, they wouldn't have stuck with it). Isn't that the ideal? That they listen to their playerbase and respond accordingly instead of sticking to their guns even when people hate something? Isn't that the entire point of UA as a concept? The majority response was a dislike of the Strixhaven's subclasses ->they dropped them. The majority response to floating ASIs was positive->They carried it forward instead of leaving it as a one-off.

Why don't they include both? I dunno, but does it matter, really? They don't, and it remains utterly trivial for those who DO want fixed ASIs to assign some themselves, or copy the ones I gave you, if you don't even want to go that far.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're right that this is about hurt feelings. But let's not act as if WotC didn't consciously decide to go "alright, X number of people want Y, so we're doing Y."

You forgot "those of you who don't care for Y can get bent" but maybe that's sub text.

TBH this subtle change thing WotC has been doing has annoyed me a little bit. It feels like, well, they’re trying to sneak in changes under the guise of options and later making new content requiring those options.

They are about as subtle as a cinder block going through a plate glass window.

See above, my answer to that would be 'so pick +1 to dex, int or wis'. You'd have what a 50% or better chance the person would be OK with that?

Or steal shamelessly from 13th Age:
your race gives you a +1 (pick from two that fit each race)
your class gives you a +2 (pick from two that fit each class).
(Granted, 13th Age did +2 for each, but I'd like to avoid power creep).

[Jervis]

Or steal shamelessly from 13th Age:
your race gives you a +1 (pick from two that fit each race)
your class gives you a +2 (pick from two that fit each class).
(Granted, 13th Age did +2 for each, but I'd like to avoid power creep).

Mountain dwarf is PHB but I see your point

[strangebloke]

Look. I've come around on floating ASIs. I think that going forward, this allows for more flexible builds. Historically something like a goliath had a strong incentive against a lot of classes, because it only got strength and con, and most classes only sort of want CON. You could build a goliath cleric (I did) but there wasn't any reason to do so. It was very clearly suboptimal. Not bad just kind of pointless, beyond using stone's endurance to avoid a concentration save 1/SR.

And sure, the stat bonuses "reinforced archetypal race/class combos" except when they didn't. Githzerai monks were kind of bad because they only got mental stats. Elves didn't really like being paladins, for example, but half elves were top tier choices!

Now with MPMM races out, things are more chaotic and the emphasis with new races has shifted more to active abilities rather than passive ability scores, which is more interesting imo. You've got a dozen clear contenders for any given build rather than a handful, and optimization which used to be heavily centralized around the flexible vhumans and half-elves is now more diverse and wild.

But, I do understand that people are annoyed that their preferred way of generating characters will not be supported going forward. I feel this way about other changes than have been made in this weird 5.25e we're in right now. Sure, you can use the old books (if you already have them) but they don't interact well with the new material without homebrewing, which means you either have to ignore ALL NEW MATERIAL (which is annoying) or you have to get the party onboard for adding restrictions to the new race options (which is also annoying.)

Now. Tasha's optional rule for adapting old material to be 'up to date' IS an optional rule. As I said earlier, JC isn't breaking into your house and holding a hand crossbow to your head. You can do whatever you want. But that's kind of the trivial point, yeah? Like, again, I like the new races, but imagine if you didn't. Imagine if going forward every single race was class-locked. All dragonborn are paladins or sorcerers, all dwarves are fighters and clerics. That kind of thing. They introduce this as an optional rule, but then every future book prints races that are locked classes.

You see the point? It's "optional" but there's still room to gripe about new releases not supporting your preferred style of play. Its not my preferred style of play at this point, on this matter, but you can see the argument?

Please, don't say that someone is playing the game wrong.

[KorvinStarmast]

Mountain dwarf is PHB but I see your point

Fair point.

I will say that Mountain Dwarf at +2 +2 is a bit of an odd duck.
Half elf at +1 +1 +2 Cha is another case of "why did they do that?" but regular human with +1 to all looks to be an attempt to make up for all of the other features that are absent.

I like the idea of: +1 to three different stats (Triton is a good case of this)
I don't mind the idea of "A +1 and a +2"

I'd like even better the thematic idea behind my suggested 13th Age ripoff has: you get a plus (and you choose from 2) based on origin/race/ancestry, and you get a larger plus based on the class that you choose (and you again pick from a couple, not a single ability score).

Flexible and within the general PHB approach.

[Psyren]

Look. I've come around on floating ASIs. I think that going forward, this allows for more flexible builds. Historically something like a goliath had a strong incentive against a lot of classes, because it only got strength and con, and most classes only sort of want CON. You could build a goliath cleric (I did) but there wasn't any reason to do so. It was very clearly suboptimal. Not bad just kind of pointless, beyond using stone's endurance to avoid a concentration save 1/SR.

And sure, the stat bonuses "reinforced archetypal race/class combos" except when they didn't. Githzerai monks were kind of bad because they only got mental stats. Elves didn't really like being paladins, for example, but half elves were top tier choices!

Now with MPMM races out, things are more chaotic and the emphasis with new races has shifted more to active abilities rather than passive ability scores, which is more interesting imo. You've got a dozen clear contenders for any given build rather than a handful, and optimization which used to be heavily centralized around the flexible vhumans and half-elves is now more diverse and wild.

But, I do understand that people are annoyed that their preferred way of generating characters will not be supported going forward. I feel this way about other changes than have been made in this weird 5.25e we're in right now. Sure, you can use the old books (if you already have them) but they don't interact well with the new material without homebrewing, which means you either have to ignore ALL NEW MATERIAL (which is annoying) or you have to get the party onboard for adding restrictions to the new race options (which is also annoying.)

Now. Tasha's optional rule for adapting old material to be 'up to date' IS an optional rule. As I said earlier, JC isn't breaking into your house and holding a hand crossbow to your head. You can do whatever you want. But that's kind of the trivial point, yeah? Like, again, I like the new races, but imagine if you didn't. Imagine if going forward every single race was class-locked. All dragonborn are paladins or sorcerers, all dwarves are fighters and clerics. That kind of thing. They introduce this as an optional rule, but then every future book prints races that are locked classes.

You see the point? It's "optional" but there's still room to gripe about new releases not supporting your preferred style of play. Its not my preferred style of play at this point, on this matter, but you can see the argument?

Please, don't say that someone is playing the game wrong.

I can understand why someone doesn't like a change, and still disagree with them that said change isn't better for the game as a whole. WotC have explained their reasons behind the change with abundant clarity and those reasons make sense, ergo I support their conclusion. I furthermore have hope that, like you strangebloke, some of the previous detractors of said change will eventually realize how little impact this truly has (or has to have) on their own games and come around.

One thing I can't understand is the false equivalencies being bandied about for some of these changes. Sure I'd be upset if WotC came out one day and said "we've decided that it fits our vision of the game to have locked race/class restrictions." Or to roll those restrictions out for a specific setting and then suddenly apply them to the wider game. But I think this is why understanding the reasons why they make these changes is so vital, because doing that would be completely antithetical to the design intent they shared. These changes are not arbitrary or capricious, there is a clear design goal behind them and so bandying about changes that would be massively unpopular AND at odds with that goal are extremely unlikely to come to pass and therefore not useful hooks for a discussion.

And even more fundamentally - I can understand the mantra "people are allowed to gripe" but not the mantra "nobody is allowed to respond to their griping."

[GooeyChewie]

Okay but why does that matter to you so much?

Wizards said one thing and then changed their mind, presumably in the face of positive reception (for if it was negative, they wouldn't have stuck with it). Isn't that the ideal? That they listen to their playerbase and respond accordingly instead of sticking to their guns even when people hate something? Isn't that the entire point of UA as a concept? The majority response was a dislike of the Strixhaven's subclasses ->they dropped them. The majority response to floating ASIs was positive->They carried it forward instead of leaving it as a one-off.

Why don't they include both? I dunno, but does it matter, really? They don't, and it remains utterly trivial for those who DO want fixed ASIs to assign some themselves, or copy the ones I gave you, if you don't even want to go that far.

When Tasha's introduced floating ASIs, players who did not like the idea were dismissed because it was optional and they could choose not to use it at their tables.

When Van Richten's used floating ASIs, players who brought up concerns that the floating ASIs were going to become the new default were dismissed because those were "lineages" rather than "races."

When the Creature Evolutions Sage Advice came out, players who pointed out that the floating ASIs had become the new default were dismissed because the fact that WotC moved forward in that direction must have meant players liked floating ASIs and hated fixed ASIs.

Now when players point out that they want what was claimed to be optional to actually be optional, they are dismissed with the Oberoni fallacy - the notion that WotC not providing the fixed ASIs isn't actually a problem because you can easily fix the problem with your own ASIs. (If it wasn't actually a problem, it wouldn't need to be fixed.)


It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.

[Jervis]

When Tasha's introduced floating ASIs, players who did not like the idea were dismissed because it was optional and they could choose not to use it at their tables.

When Van Richten's used floating ASIs, players who brought up concerns that the floating ASIs were going to become the new default were dismissed because those were "lineages" rather than "races."

When the Creature Evolutions Sage Advice came out, players who pointed out that the floating ASIs had become the new default were dismissed because the fact that WotC moved forward in that direction must have meant players liked floating ASIs and hated fixed ASIs.

Now when players point out that they want what was claimed to be optional to actually be optional, they are dismissed with the Oberoni fallacy - the notion that WotC not providing the fixed ASIs isn't actually a problem because you can easily fix the problem with your own ASIs. (If it wasn't actually a problem, it wouldn't need to be fixed.)


It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.

This is pretty common in my experience.

Thing starts happening that part of fandom doesn’t like

People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy

Thing in fact does happen exactly like people said

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

For my money I think printing official standard ASIs and leaving a note about swapping them wouldn’t hurt them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

Or "well, it's too late to do anything about it now!"

[Psyren]

When Tasha's introduced floating ASIs, players who did not like the idea were dismissed because it was optional and they could choose not to use it at their tables.

When Van Richten's used floating ASIs, players who brought up concerns that the floating ASIs were going to become the new default were dismissed because those were "lineages" rather than "races."

When the Creature Evolutions Sage Advice came out, players who pointed out that the floating ASIs had become the new default were dismissed because the fact that WotC moved forward in that direction must have meant players liked floating ASIs and hated fixed ASIs.

Now when players point out that they want what was claimed to be optional to actually be optional, they are dismissed with the Oberoni fallacy - the notion that WotC not providing the fixed ASIs isn't actually a problem because you can easily fix the problem with your own ASIs. (If it wasn't actually a problem, it wouldn't need to be fixed.)


It should come as no surprise that players who want official fixed ASIs options (even if they also want the floating ASI as an optional rule) have a problem with having been hoodwinked then dismissed over and over again.

This is pretty common in my experience.

Thing starts happening that part of fandom doesn’t like

People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy

Thing in fact does happen exactly like people said

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

What about those of us who from the beginning said "this is a good change being made for good reasons, and hopefully it does become the default?"

For my money I think printing official standard ASIs and leaving a note about swapping them wouldn’t hurt them.

Lots of unnecessary things wouldn't hurt them, that doesn't make them any less necessary.

[Jervis]

What about those of us who from the beginning said "this is a good change being made for good reasons, and hopefully it does become the default?"



Lots of unnecessary things wouldn't hurt them, that doesn't make them any less necessary.

You’re perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.

Jokes aside I hate the “this is an option but it’s totally not an option and you should use it.” Approach they’re doing. Its obvious they want to apply changes they mean for the 2024 5.5 or whatever ahead of an edition change after saying that they want the core books to go unchanged. It’s a lot of rule changes that should be left for a proper change in the core rules instead of stapled into the rules of an existing edition.

[Segev]

Okay but why does that matter to you so much?

This encapsulates it well:

This is pretty common in my experience.

Thing starts happening that part of fandom doesn’t like

People who like said thing say it’s not happening and your just being crazy

Thing in fact does happen exactly like people said

People who said you were being crazy now say that you shouldn’t have been worried in the first place and that this was obviously happening all along.

For my money I think printing official standard ASIs and leaving a note about swapping them wouldn’t hurt them.

It's essentially a form of gaslighting. "Look, you're crazy/stupid/immature for objecting to this TOTALLY OPTIONAL rule; it's not like it's going to change things for those who don't like it. So stop trying to argue about why it's bad for the game if it goes forward, while we who like it praise its wonder." "Well, lookie here! All the positive reception and the fact that people who criticized it were ignored/not vocal enough means it's going forward as a change to the game overall! Isn't this great? Of course it's great. Now, if you don't like it, stop complaining; it was ALWAYS going to be this way, and you should have known that. How dare you suggest that it was not what we said, and that you were right about it? You clearly were wrong then and are wrong now, even though it turned out exactly like you said it would, because we claim we never meant it the way we said it and that you're wrong about what you're seeing with your own eyes right now."

If there was an honest reaction of, "Well, I guess you were right; it DID go that way. I still think it's a good thing," that wouldn't be quite so offensive to my sensibilities. But being told that not only was I wrong about my prediction, but that I am still wrong about it even though it's come true AND that the denial of my prediction has held out even though it clearly hasn't is highly irritating.

That's why it matters so much to me. Because it feels like my intelligence is being insulted as I'm told, "You're wrong, even though exactly what you said would happen, did. And it didn't happen, anyway, even as you point to it happening, because we're choosing to play rules lawyer games with the wording in ways that move the goal posts."

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's essentially a form of gaslighting. "Look, you're crazy/stupid/immature for objecting to this TOTALLY OPTIONAL rule; it's not like it's going to change things for those who don't like it. So stop trying to argue about why it's bad for the game if it goes forward, while we who like it praise its wonder." "Well, lookie here! All the positive reception and the fact that people who criticized it were ignored/not vocal enough means it's going forward as a change to the game overall! Isn't this great? Of course it's great. Now, if you don't like it, stop complaining; it was ALWAYS going to be this way, and you should have known that. How dare you suggest that it was not what we said, and that you were right about it? You clearly were wrong then and are wrong now, even though it turned out exactly like you said it would, because we claim we never meant it the way we said it and that you're wrong about what you're seeing with your own eyes right now."

If there was an honest reaction of, "Well, I guess you were right; it DID go that way. I still think it's a good thing," that wouldn't be quite so offensive to my sensibilities. But being told that not only was I wrong about my prediction, but that I am still wrong about it even though it's come true AND that the denial of my prediction has held out even though it clearly hasn't is highly irritating.

That's why it matters so much to me. Because it feels like my intelligence is being insulted as I'm told, "You're wrong, even though exactly what you said would happen, did. And it didn't happen, anyway, even as you point to it happening, because we're choosing to play rules lawyer games with the wording in ways that move the goal posts."

Right. The change itself is meh. Don't really care all that much. But the discussion around it and especially the absolutely insulting and deceptive responses of the fanboys? That grinds my gears. Especially since it was blindingly obvious that that was what was going to happen, yet saying so was verboten.

[Segev]

Right. The change itself is meh. Don't really care all that much. But the discussion around it and especially the absolutely insulting and deceptive responses of the fanboys? That grinds my gears. Especially since it was blindingly obvious that that was what was going to happen, yet saying so was verboten.

Exactly. And, because SAYING SO was forbidden, you were scoffed at for discussing the consequences of the change. After all, it wasn't going to happen.

And now, of course, it hasn't happened, and it's a good thing it has happened anyway.

Honest debate is one thing. Gaslighting is another. And regardless of anybody here's intent, the "oh, pish posh, it's totally optional in the same sense that 3.5 was optional from the moment it came out because 3.0 books still existed" dismissal comes off as gaslighting, since nobody is denying that the previous books exist...only that the "optional" nature of TCE's rule is actually a retrofit for rules that are being deprecated.

And it's the deprecation that we want to debate the merits of, but are being told to shut up because it's "optional."

[Amnestic]

This encapsulates it well:


That's why it matters so much to me. Because it feels like my intelligence is being insulted as I'm told, "You're wrong, even though exactly what you said would happen, did. And it didn't happen, anyway, even as you point to it happening, because we're choosing to play rules lawyer games with the wording in ways that move the goal posts."

So it's not even about WotC, it's about internet randos on forums/reddit/elsewhere maybe?

Okay well that makes...I want to say "more" sense but honestly it still feels like an overreaction. The internet randos may have truly thought that it would just be a one-off optional rule, or maybe they secretly knew ahead of time that it would become the new paradigm. Seems like it was a 50/50 flip, since Wizards could've backtracked after Tasha's release if the response had been bad, just like they have backtracked from other things in the past.

You were right in you prediction. I'd try to focus on the positives of that, instead of dwelling on the negatives.

Right. The change itself is meh. Don't really care all that much. But the discussion around it and especially the absolutely insulting and deceptive responses of the fanboys? That grinds my gears. Especially since it was blindingly obvious that that was what was going to happen, yet saying so was verboten.

I don't know why you're saying that saying it would become the new paradigm was 'verboten' when no threads were locked for saying so, no discussions were censored. People may have disagreed with you but that's not really the same thing, is it? You're ascribing both knowledge of the future and malice to those who disagreed with you. Maybe that's legitimate and some forum posters are secretly WotC insiders who knew everything ahead of time...but given that there aren't many Divination experts around it could be that they simply foresaw a different outcome and found the detractors doomsaying just as "insulting".

We had to put up with a bunch of people saying that everyone would just roll mountain dwarf wizards and custom lineage and oh no everyone will only play two races and of course that hasn't happened, but they weren't trying to "gaslight" anyone when they said that. They had a belief that turned out to be wrong. Just like the people who thought, sincerely, that the Tasha's stuff would be a one-off.

Exactly. And, because SAYING SO was forbidden,

Who's gaslighting whom now? Where was it forbidden?

People disagreeing with you, and perhaps being more numerous than you, does not make saying it "forbidden". You're complaining about people denuding the term "optional" but what are you doing if not exactly that right now with the term "forbidden"?

[Psyren]

You’re perfectly entitled to your wrong opinion.

Lol.

Jokes aside I hate the “this is an option but it’s totally not an option and you should use it.” Approach they’re doing. Its obvious they want to apply changes they mean for the 2024 5.5 or whatever ahead of an edition change after saying that they want the core books to go unchanged. It’s a lot of rule changes that should be left for a proper change in the core rules instead of stapled into the rules of an existing edition.

They haven't changed the core books though? Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes etc all still have fixed ASIs. They're waiting until 5.5 to change those. And now you know for sure that change is coming and can plan accordingly.

So it's not even about WotC, it's about internet randos on forums/reddit/elsewhere maybe?

Okay well that makes...I want to say "more" sense but honestly it still feels like an overreaction. The internet randos may have truly thought that it would just be a one-off optional rule, or maybe they secretly knew ahead of time that it would become the new paradigm. Seems like it was a 50/50 flip, since Wizards could've backtracked after Tasha's release if the response had been bad, just like they have backtracked from other things in the past.

You were right in you prediction. I'd try to focus on the positives of that, instead of dwelling on the negatives.



I don't know why you're saying that saying it would become the new paradigm was 'verboten' when no threads were locked for saying so, no discussions were censored. People may have disagreed with you but that's not really the same thing, is it? You're ascribing both knowledge of the future and malice to those who disagreed with you. Maybe that's legitimate and some forum posters are secretly WotC insiders who knew everything ahead of time...but given that there aren't many Divination experts around it could be that they simply foresaw a different outcome and found the detractors doomsaying just as "insulting".

We had to put up with a bunch of people saying that everyone would just roll mountain dwarf wizards and custom lineage and oh no everyone will only play two races and of course that hasn't happened, but they weren't trying to "gaslight" anyone when they said that. They had a belief that turned out to be wrong. Just like the people who thought, sincerely, that the Tasha's stuff would be a one-off.





Who's gaslighting whom now? Where was it forbidden?

People disagreeing with you, and perhaps being more numerous than you, does not make saying it "forbidden". You're complaining about people denuding the term "optional" but what are you doing if not exactly that right now with the term "forbidden"?

Yep.

[GooeyChewie]

What about those of us who from the beginning said "this is a good change being made for good reasons, and hopefully it does become the default?"

If you mean to ask about people who provided positive feedback regarding the optional floating ASI rule, their concerns were not dismissed. WotC did not go back and remove the rule. If WotC had removed that option, those players would be justified in being upset, and I would be right there with them.

But if you mean to ask about people who provided feedback indicating that floating ASIs should become the default and that fixed ASIs should no longer be printed? That feedback strays from what you want to do at your table into what you want other tables to be allowed to do. That sort of feedback should be dismissed. And to be clear, I'm also saying that feedback that said other tables should be barred from using the optional rule should also be dismissed.

[Segev]

"You're wrong, because it won't go there, so it's not a problem, so stop discussing the consequences of it if it does go that direction," is more or less a major thrust of the arguments that happened on this very forum. Maybe that doesn't mean it's "forbidden," but it certainly means that no good-faith discussion of it was permitted without being shouted down as "crazy talk," essentially.

I hope that the redone races in the new book will actually have better thought-out changes on a fundamental level than just slapping TCE's optional rule onto them. The new races don't give me a lot of hope for that, though, given that their features are fairly lackluster. I fear we're going to wind up with race being as important to character design as hair style with the way things are going.

[Telwar]

Fair point.

I will say that Mountain Dwarf at +2 +2 is a bit of an odd duck.

Mountain dwarf's +2 Str and armor proficiencies didn't go with each other at all; any class that was likely to benefit from +2 Str already had medium armor proficiency, and classes that wanted the free armor proficiency were unlikely to benefit from the Strength.

One of the annoyances is that, somewhere, WotC stated "no, we don't balance ASIs and racial features at all," which, looking at the mountain dwarf, is plainly untrue.

Half elf at +1 +1 +2 Cha is another case of "why did they do that?" but regular human with +1 to all looks to be an attempt to make up for all of the other features that are absent.

I have to say, it boggles my mind that half-elf has so damn much going for it. Compared to vhuman, assuming a feat = an ASI, it still winds up with darkvision, an extra skill proficiency, an extra language, and Fey Ancestry over vhuman. Maybe they didn't think Charisma would be as important in this edition as it turned out to be?

I'd like even better the thematic idea behind my suggested 13th Age ripoff has: you get a plus (and you choose from 2) based on origin/race/ancestry, and you get a larger plus based on the class that you choose (and you again pick from a couple, not a single ability score).

Honestly, while something like 13th Age or PF2's systems would be great, and a system that completely removed ASIs from the race/legacy/ancestry/whatever would be great too, those take time and effort (especially the latter). While @jappleton says the Tasha's rules were in development for a while, it feels like they were crapped out over a two-hour lunch.

And yet...they're actually fairly reasonable, as far as something maybe crapped out over a long lunch can be. Perfect is the enemy of the good enough, after all, especially if you have a Twitter mob storming the gates and Hasbro can decide they don't need you if you're going to make that many people mad.

Now, maybe that bought them enough time to make a more elegant system, where they could have physiological differences represented in some manner other than ASIs or proficiencies (like elves being good at perception, rather than being represented as a proficiency, instead being represented by an additional d4, say). Of course, I doubt that highly.