It's funny how you can ignore the words of the designers when it suits you. Again, what did they write, twice in just a few paragraphs:
The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama.
Whereas they say nothing about murderhobos. So you can say whatever you want about what YOU think the game is about, the designers have a rather more precise idea about what they designed.
To some, telling an epic story of a group who go around killing everything they see (i.e. being murderhobos) may be "filled with tension and memorable drama", in which case their game style completely fits with those 2 statements. The same can be said for most other game styles. They would not be my own choice, and I may not find their stories compelling in any way, but if they do then good for them. It isn't BadWrongFun for them to do so, just as it isn't BadWrongFun for my wife to read period romance novels which I find terrible.
It's funny how you can ignore the words of the designers when it suits you. Again, what did they write, twice in just a few paragraphs:
The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery.
You and your friends create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama.
Whereas they say nothing about murderhobos. So you can say whatever you want about what YOU think the game is about, the designers have a rather more precise idea about what they designed.
To some, telling an epic story of a group who go around killing everything they see (i.e. being murderhobos) may be "filled with tension and memorable drama", in which case their game style completely fits with those 2 statements. The same can be said for most other game styles. They would not be my own choice, and I may not find their stories compelling in any way, but if they do then good for them. It isn't BadWrongFun for them to do so, just as it isn't BadWrongFun for my wife to read period romance novels which I find terrible.
I'm not saying it's bad or wrong, but what I'm saying is that it's a large stretch of the designer's intent to say that they designed 5e for a miniature wargame or that murderhobos are concerned with "drama", that's all.
Its really not.the vast majority of character features is combat based. You do not have to focus on the combat aspects but for sure its a huge part of the game and game design.
We aren't getting new UA with rules changes....we are getting UA for subclasses and linages with new mechanical options for combat.
It's funny how you can ignore the words of the designers when it suits you.
Just to be clear, you're talking about the same designers who designed Tasha's, right?
"Despite that versatility, a typical character race in D&D includes little or no choice—a lack that can make it difficult to realize certain character concepts. The following subsections address that lack by adding choice to your character’s race, allowing you to customize your ability scores, languages, and certain proficiencies to fit the origin you have in mind for your character. Character race in the game represents your character’s fantasy species, combined with certain cultural assumptions. The following options step outside those assumptions to pave the way for truly unique characters."
Hey, um, I'm stopping by because there's some nonsense about what the designers were intending with the game, and so on. The intent of the game is fun. Anything else is fluff that can be thrown out as long as the players are having fun. Just for reference, here you go:
Hey, um, I'm stopping by because there's some nonsense about what the designers were intending with the game, and so on. The intent of the game is fun. Anything else is fluff that can be thrown out as long as the players are having fun. Just for reference, here you go:
Supporting note: unless the designers of the game are sitting there at your table, 'Design Intent' doesn't matter one little spit more than you want it to. And the designers themselves would agree. Remember, Wizards' Lead Story Designer for D&D played a monster stat block for twenty minutes in one of the most beloved moments of modern broadcast Dungeons and Dragons.
Everything about Spurt's existence was expressly against The Design Intent Of The Game. Neither the DM for the game, nor Spurt's player, nor the millions watching, cared. D&D 5e's Lead Story Designer played a cracked-out kobold for twenty minutes, putting the party in absolute stitches with zany antics, before getting flattened by a fire giant and it was beautiful.
Stop using the assumed opinions of people you've never met as weapons against fellow players, please. Especially when those people would absolutely not be okay with their names and positions being used to do any such thing.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently broken in here, you got lucky and rolled all your stats well, just as easily you could have ended up with something like this: 9 8 10 7 9 5
That’s the deal with rolling for stats, the result is unpredictable, you hope for the best and sometimes get it but you might as well roll very badly, there is supposed to be big deviations using this method. If you or your DM think it will break the game, just use point buy or standard array and you end up with something more average. With those starting stats you have plenty of room to take feats instead of ASIs, which is much more fun. And even with good stats your character at low levels will be limited by low hp, proficiency bonus, few class abilities and so on, yeah, this is a very powerful character but I wouldn’t call him gamebreaking.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently broken in here, you got lucky and rolled all your stats well, just as easily you could have ended up with something like this: 9 8 10 7 9 5
I do agree, as long as this is what happens. However, most I know who roll for stats have a get out clause if they roll badly, which basically turns out into a chance to get extremely high stats but no chance of low ones.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently broken in here, you got lucky and rolled all your stats well, just as easily you could have ended up with something like this: 9 8 10 7 9 5
I do agree, as long as this is what happens. However, most I know who roll for stats have a get out clause if they roll badly, which basically turns out into a chance to get extremely high stats but no chance of low ones.
And again, this goes to prove that it's usually not any single rule that causes an imbalance problem, it's always a combination. In the case of this thread, it's not only "rolling", or "Tasha", it's rolling until I get an incredible array, even if I have to use totally ridiculous methods to get it, PLUS Tasha's, that creates the concern.
Otherwise, I'm absolutely sure that all the powergamers around here would never be caught playing a character with 4d6 rolled stats, straight and without re-roll, it would mess up the build too much.
And there you have it. TCoE custom origin doesn't break anything. If you actually follow the written rules, it's fine, and custom origins can actually help to level out discrepancies in power caused by rolling high and low. However, if there are house rules which allow everyone to keep rolling until they get amazing stats in everything, things start to break....
I was going to comment pointing out that rolling stats, unless you roll them in order, is not really any different with or without Tashas if your goal is hig hstats - if you want high Strength, you pick a race with +2 Str and then put your high roll into Str, giving you a high Str stat (18-20 if you roll well).
But it seems the discussion has now evolved to what the writers want, how the rules work (or don't work), semantics over percentages vs the number of instances of the word "really" in a sentence, and contains the wonderful phrase "bohemian failure monkey", which I now love. The phrase, not a monkey.
As for the "purpose of the game" - to enjoy it- in whatever way suits you! powergame, BFM, roleplay, whatever you like to do, as long as it doesn't make it un-fun for someone else, you're doing it right!
Again, this is not a thread specifically about custom origins, I've already summed up my problems about it earlier, it's clearly a thread about compounding problems. And, more specifically, my point here is that it adds one more optimisation / breaking component to the game, and is therefore one more source of imbalance/instability, and for reasons which are "hidden" behind a layer of hypocrisy because, as demonstrated extremely clearly in this thread, none of the people who use the rule do it because of what have been called by some here noble reasons (and those I totally respect, at least the original intent, inasmuch as it is linked to a fantasy game). People have clearly shown demonstrated that they do only it for the "sweet", purely technical bonus.
You don't have nearly large enough of a sample size to be making these kinds of definitive statements. Grilling LeBattery about their half-orc and whatever other smattering of similar conversations you've had on these forums doesn't cut it.
This is an incredibly insulting thing to insinuate about people. Please stop questioning whether people actually care about this because of the sociopolitical ramifications. You have been in conversations with people that talk about how past D&D design philosophy has been harmful to them. It would mean a lot to a lot of people on here if you could show some respect towards the veracity of what people talk about and avoid questioning motives.
This conclusion also misses the mark because you fail to take into account that humans get to have a multi-faceted relationship with whatever they want, and invariably do. It is in fact possible to simultaneously appreciate the ToCe racial design philosophy as an important step forward in the sociopolitical arena, believe that it opens up player freedom to create exactly the character they want from a roleplay perspective and enjoy the mechanical side of tweaking characters with these new rules.
Again, this is not a thread specifically about custom origins, I've already summed up my problems about it earlier, it's clearly a thread about compounding problems. And, more specifically, my point here is that it adds one more optimisation / breaking component to the game, and is therefore one more source of imbalance/instability, and for reasons which are "hidden" behind a layer of hypocrisy because, as demonstrated extremely clearly in this thread, none of the people who use the rule do it because of what have been called by some here noble reasons (and those I totally respect, at least the original intent, inasmuch as it is linked to a fantasy game). People have clearly shown demonstrated that they do only it for the "sweet", purely technical bonus.
You don't have nearly large enough of a sample size to be making these kinds of definitive statements. Grilling LeBattery about their half-orc and whatever other smattering of similar conversations you've had on these forums doesn't cut it.
And again, all it would take is ONE counter example. And even though I have (truthfully) said that I admire LeBattery for his worldbuilding, in the end, demonstrably, it was about a +4 against a +2. He even admitted that he could have done a satisfying character with the standard method by swapping rolls around.
ASIs are definitionally about numbers. Any example that anyone gives you, you will construe as optimization. A wizard puts the +2 in INT? Optimization! A wizard puts the +2 in CHA, because they want to be better at diplomacy? Optimization! Anyone puts the +2 in DEX to get better AC and initiative? Optimization! Powergaming!
Every ability score is useful in D&D. Therefore, any increase to any ability score can be construed as powergaming. You'll never be satisfied, and you'll always move the goalposts to label anyone customizing their origin as a powergamer. You are arguing in bad faith. Your criticism is lame. You're ignoring or mislabeling the intent of other people, ignoring and mislabeling the stated intent of the designers, and generally denigrating whole swaths of players while hiding behind "but I didn't use the word 'munchkin'..."
Again, this is not a thread specifically about custom origins, I've already summed up my problems about it earlier, it's clearly a thread about compounding problems. And, more specifically, my point here is that it adds one more optimisation / breaking component to the game, and is therefore one more source of imbalance/instability, and for reasons which are "hidden" behind a layer of hypocrisy because, as demonstrated extremely clearly in this thread, none of the people who use the rule do it because of what have been called by some here noble reasons (and those I totally respect, at least the original intent, inasmuch as it is linked to a fantasy game). People have clearly shown demonstrated that they do only it for the "sweet", purely technical bonus.
You don't have nearly large enough of a sample size to be making these kinds of definitive statements. Grilling LeBattery about their half-orc and whatever other smattering of similar conversations you've had on these forums doesn't cut it.
And again, all it would take is ONE counter example. And even though I have (truthfully) said that I admire LeBattery for his worldbuilding, in the end, demonstrably, it was about a +4 against a +2. He even admitted that he could have done a satisfying character with the standard method by swapping rolls around.
ASIs are definitionally about numbers. Any example that anyone gives you, you will construe as optimization. A wizard puts the +2 in INT? Optimization! A wizard puts the +2 in CHA, because they want to be better at diplomacy? Optimization! Anyone puts the +2 in DEX to get better AC and initiative? Optimization! Powergaming!
Every ability score is useful in D&D. Therefore, any increase to any ability score can be construed as powergaming. You'll never be satisfied, and you'll always move the goalposts to label anyone customizing their origin as a powergamer. You are arguing in bad faith. Your criticism is lame. You're ignoring or mislabeling the intent of other people, ignoring and mislabeling the stated intent of the designers, and generally denigrating whole swaths of players while hiding behind "but I didn't use the word 'munchkin'..."
A player can have his Wizard put a +2 into Cha AND a +2 into Int at level 0 with the 27 point buy. All the things that players does with the new mechanics pretty much can be done with any of the older systems. But new mechanics make it easier, with less penalties. I would love to have a Stout Halfling be able to move around his species stat bonuses to make the perfect Hex Rogue, with 2 levels of Hexblade and the rest Rogue. But with the 27 point buy system, there are a lot of tradeoffs doing so, including an odd number, likely in Int or Con. But voila!, with a wave of the new rules, those tradeoffs disappear.
All these arguments boil down to some simple facts.
Some players (and DM's) want to play a game with a firm set of rules, and a game that is challenging, so a player has to be creative within those rules. This rewards good players, and weaker players are exposed. And yes, just like any game on the planet, there are strong and weak players in D&D.
Other players chafe at any type of restrictions to char creation, and have totally embraced the book that shall not be named, because in all aspects it makes the game easier. Whether it is in char creation, or swapping cantrips, at various levels, or swapping skills, or whatever, every single thing in the mechanics section of that book caters to the players who wanted an easier game, call it "player-friendly".
And yes, while many here can say that "Oh no, I don't use the new char creation rules for anything but role-playing", the fact remains these new rules are a power-gamer's, or munchkin's, or whatever term you want to use, dream. That fact is indisputable.
We that want the more restrictive game are clearly a vanishing breed, but some of us plan to die on that hill. Any new mechanics in the book that shall not be named will never be used in a game I DM. And yes, when I play in a game where the DM allows such nonsense, I will self-regulate my char and not use them. I have played in enough games where the DM let things go on char creation and mechanics and watched those games spin out of control.
Vince, its really not a good idea to separate players into "good" and "weak", it makes you sound arrogant and its very gatekeeper-y language, no one new is going to want to play if one of the official rulebooks is deemed only to be for weak players.
Also, you can have a challenging game with firm rules whilst also using Tasha's *gasp* and having house rules. Its not mutually exclusive. And calling players weak for using Tasha's is just flat out wrong, no one is a better or worse player for using it.
For someone so interested in following the rules so much you seem to have missed an entire rule book, and you also missed a pretty important note with it, its optional, if you want your characters racial stats to remain as they are, then don't change them. There is nothing in Tasha's saying you have to change them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" - Dungeon Masters Guide
Obviously I didn't NEED Tasha's stats to make Boris a high charisma fighter. But with point buy, the max of 15 didn't sit right with me. A +2 CHA isn't a pillar of the community, but a +4 CHA? That level of diplomacy is what I wanted for him. I didn't want "he's still a fighter with an slightly higher charisma to be different" I wanted "He's a charasmatic, kind old man who still has a bit of the old fighter training in him.
.....
Yes I could have set his STR to 13 and let the +2 change it to a 15, and set the CHA to 15 and used ASI's as I leveled. But the other stats would be affected by that too and that wouldn't be the character I wanted to create.
Maybe you missed this? A stat bonus can also have ramifications on how you view your character from a roleplaying perspective. Having that +4 allows for a greater sense of immersion within the role of diplomatic old guy for LeBattery.
I know my stat bonuses directly correspond to how I feel about my character's personality, appearance and history. If I want to play a street-smart, hard-nosed investigator I'm not going to be satisfied with a 12 in intelligence, wisdom or charisma because each of them cover an aspect of what I want my character's most defining features to be and reflecting that in how good they are at finding and deciphering clues, reading the room, interrogating witnesses and sensing danger helps me embrace the character concept. It is in fact possible for a strong ability score to have a relationship with more than just number-crunching optimization. Any part of the character sheet can be used to help the player's immersion in playing the role of that character.
And again, all it would take is ONE counter example. And even though I have (truthfully) said that I admire LeBattery for his worldbuilding, in the end, demonstrably, it was about a +4 against a +2. He even admitted that he could have done a satisfying character with the standard method by swapping rolls around.
I'm not really sure what you're expecting this one example to look like. People's appreciation of the new racial design philosophy isn't going to be reflected on a character sheet. It's going to be reflected in the types of new players that come to the game, or players returning after a bad experience caused by past racial design. You and I have been in conversations where people talk about that and point to Tasha's being a nice step forward. So as far as I'm concerned you have been given your one example, it's just not in the form you're looking for.
I do not understand your need to get people to be honest about their motives when playing D&D. This whole "just be honest" thing is really insulting. As if people owe you or anyone an explanation as to why or how they build their characters.
I'm cutting the rest because you know what, it's not the subject of the thread, at all, and it's a discussion that is wholly unsuited for these forums. Just something in terms of openness, not everyone here is from the US and has the same concerns, please take that into account as well.
I would ask you to do the same. Just because it is not a concern of yours does not mean it is not a MAJOR concern for other people. No one is shoving this down your throat. It's optional. Constantly questioning people's honesty around the subject is not the respect you are asking for here.
And yes, while many here can say that "Oh no, I don't use the new char creation rules for anything but role-playing", the fact remains these new rules are a power-gamer's, or munchkin's, or whatever term you want to use, dream. That fact is indisputable.
Nothing is ever just one thing Vince. Tasha's is a tool for all types of players with all types of motives.
As far as the title of the thread, I think the word "Broken" gets thrown around entirely too much in the D&D community. No, it isn't broken. If someone high rolled an 18 then they can find a way to make a character with a 20 starting stat with or without Tasha's. Small numerical advantages like this can be easily adapted to by the DM if necessary when creating encounters and does not present a situation that exploits part of the system like say, the Coffeelock.
A player can have his Wizard put a +2 into Cha AND a +2 into Int at level 0 with the 27 point buy. All the things that players does with the new mechanics pretty much can be done with any of the older systems. But new mechanics make it easier, with less penalties. I would love to have a Stout Halfling be able to move around his species stat bonuses to make the perfect Hex Rogue, with 2 levels of Hexblade and the rest Rogue. But with the 27 point buy system, there are a lot of tradeoffs doing so, including an odd number, likely in Int or Con. But voila!, with a wave of the new rules, those tradeoffs disappear.
The point is that, yes, people can potentially get the same score with point buy, without the racial ASI. However, that character will by definition be mechanically worse than one which had the racial ASI on that stat.
If I wish to make a Barbarian, there are a few races which are significantly better than others. If I wanted, without TCoE, to make a Barbarian which had the same Strength and Constitution as, say, a Half Orc which ended up with 15 Str and Con, I would necessarily have to reduce several other scores to do so. Because the Point Buy system puts such a heavy weight on the higher scores, I will have sacrificed 6 points to get to this, so the other 4 ability scores will have lost an average of 1.5 each. Even if I have a +2/+1 on another 2 stats, these will necessarily be worth less because they are on stats which a Barbarian wouldn't generally put a big stat in.
This also ignores the fact that the standard points buy system tops out at 15. Instead, I could have used point buy to get the same array with a Half-Orc, but the racial ASIs bump that to a 17 Str and 16 Con. These would be impossible with a race which did not have Str/Con ASIs, so again, the Half Orc is objectively better.
Now, you may call this power gaming. It isn't. It is a heavy advantage towards certain races being certain classes, which is basically determinism. Half Orcs are good barbarians and fighters, but bad wizards and warlocks. If you want to make a Half Orc Wizard, it will never be as good as a Gnome Wizard. To play outside the stereotypical roles for the race you choose, or to choose a race for the role you wish to play which is not the normal one, you must accept a significant disadvantage.
TCoE's system, on the other hand, removes this penalty. I can explore unusual combinations, like a Half Orc Wizard or a Gnome Barbarian, without having to accept a large penalty to their core skills. I don't have to be bad at the classes core skills to be different. It opens up huge swathes of new, exciting options, removing barriers to playing interesting new concepts.
Now, I am pretty certain someone will come back and call me a Power Gamer for wanting to be as good as I can be at my classes core skills. If that's the way you wish to interpret it, go ahead, but you are wrong. I just don't want to come up with an interesting character as a Gnome Barbarian, but then look at it and think, "A Half Orc, or a Dragonborn, would be better at this, and I could have made the backstory fit... Was it really worth purposely making myself worse?"
Again, this is not a thread specifically about custom origins, I've already summed up my problems about it earlier, it's clearly a thread about compounding problems. And, more specifically, my point here is that it adds one more optimisation / breaking component to the game, and is therefore one more source of imbalance/instability, and for reasons which are "hidden" behind a layer of hypocrisy because, as demonstrated extremely clearly in this thread, none of the people who use the rule do it because of what have been called by some here noble reasons (and those I totally respect, at least the original intent, inasmuch as it is linked to a fantasy game). People have clearly shown demonstrated that they do only it for the "sweet", purely technical bonus.
You don't have nearly large enough of a sample size to be making these kinds of definitive statements. Grilling LeBattery about their half-orc and whatever other smattering of similar conversations you've had on these forums doesn't cut it.
And again, all it would take is ONE counter example. And even though I have (truthfully) said that I admire LeBattery for his worldbuilding, in the end, demonstrably, it was about a +4 against a +2. He even admitted that he could have done a satisfying character with the standard method by swapping rolls around.
ASIs are definitionally about numbers. Any example that anyone gives you, you will construe as optimization. A wizard puts the +2 in INT? Optimization! A wizard puts the +2 in CHA, because they want to be better at diplomacy? Optimization! Anyone puts the +2 in DEX to get better AC and initiative? Optimization! Powergaming!
Every ability score is useful in D&D. Therefore, any increase to any ability score can be construed as powergaming. You'll never be satisfied, and you'll always move the goalposts to label anyone customizing their origin as a powergamer. You are arguing in bad faith. Your criticism is lame. You're ignoring or mislabeling the intent of other people, ignoring and mislabeling the stated intent of the designers, and generally denigrating whole swaths of players while hiding behind "but I didn't use the word 'munchkin'..."
This...
The idea of "Powergaming" has lost all meaning as its definition is vastly different depending on who you are talking to. If you want a 16 to start in your main stat are you optimizing? yeah for sure....is that powergaming? Of course not....thats just playing a character well.
What if you do 16 DEX and 16 CON for a fighter? Thats just prudent to do.
If you like the aesthetic of a dwarf rogue....why would it be terrible if you did a +2 Dex Dwarf who was weak and couldn't grow a proper beard as a lad so he compensated by getting quick and stealing/sneak attacking the bully dwarves. It fits narratively, has good RP potential ("Hey is that an overgrown gnome or is that a beardless dwarf??"), and the player gets to do what they would have done with a different race anyway?
It hurts no one and only allows for better creativity.
All these arguments boil down to some simple facts.
Some players (and DM's) want to play a game with a firm set of rules, and a game that is challenging, so a player has to be creative within those rules. This rewards good players, and weaker players are exposed. And yes, just like any game on the planet, there are strong and weak players in D&D.
Other players chafe at any type of restrictions to char creation, and have totally embraced the book that shall not be named, because in all aspects it makes the game easier. Whether it is in char creation, or swapping cantrips, at various levels, or swapping skills, or whatever, every single thing in the mechanics section of that book caters to the players who wanted an easier game, call it "player-friendly".
And yes, while many here can say that "Oh no, I don't use the new char creation rules for anything but role-playing", the fact remains these new rules are a power-gamer's, or munchkin's, or whatever term you want to use, dream. That fact is indisputable.
We that want the more restrictive game are clearly a vanishing breed, but some of us plan to die on that hill. Any new mechanics in the book that shall not be named will never be used in a game I DM. And yes, when I play in a game where the DM allows such nonsense, I will self-regulate my char and not use them. I have played in enough games where the DM let things go on char creation and mechanics and watched those games spin out of control.
Vince, its really not a good idea to separate players into "good" and "weak", it makes you sound arrogant and its very gatekeeper-y language, no one new is going to want to play if one of the official rulebooks is deemed only to be for weak players.
Also, you can have a challenging game with firm rules whilst also using Tasha's *gasp* and having house rules. Its not mutually exclusive. And calling players weak for using Tasha's is just flat out wrong, no one is a better or worse player for using it.
For someone so interested in following the rules so much you seem to have missed an entire rule book, and you also missed a pretty important note with it, its optional, if you want your characters racial stats to remain as they are, then don't change them. There is nothing in Tasha's saying you have to change them.
You keep saying that the book that shall not be named is "optional". It is not optional in AL, and WOTC has already made it clear that future reprints of the PHB WILL include these new mechanics, and NOT the existing mechanics. The grey box in the Gothic Lineages UA made that explicit. So when I have new players arrive at my table (as will happen since I play and DM primarily at a game cafe), there is going to be a lot of confusion and disappointment when I tell a new player "sorry, that version of the PHB is not canon at my table".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To some, telling an epic story of a group who go around killing everything they see (i.e. being murderhobos) may be "filled with tension and memorable drama", in which case their game style completely fits with those 2 statements. The same can be said for most other game styles. They would not be my own choice, and I may not find their stories compelling in any way, but if they do then good for them. It isn't BadWrongFun for them to do so, just as it isn't BadWrongFun for my wife to read period romance novels which I find terrible.
Its really not.the vast majority of character features is combat based. You do not have to focus on the combat aspects but for sure its a huge part of the game and game design.
We aren't getting new UA with rules changes....we are getting UA for subclasses and linages with new mechanical options for combat.
Combat is absolutely dramatic, and to claim it's not is just gatekeeping. They don't play elevator music when Zorro whips out his sword.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Just to be clear, you're talking about the same designers who designed Tasha's, right?
"Despite that versatility, a typical character race in D&D includes little or no choice—a lack that can make it difficult to realize certain character concepts. The following subsections address that lack by adding choice to your character’s race, allowing you to customize your ability scores, languages, and certain proficiencies to fit the origin you have in mind for your character. Character race in the game represents your character’s fantasy species, combined with certain cultural assumptions. The following options step outside those assumptions to pave the way for truly unique characters."
Hey, um, I'm stopping by because there's some nonsense about what the designers were intending with the game, and so on. The intent of the game is fun. Anything else is fluff that can be thrown out as long as the players are having fun. Just for reference, here you go:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/104106-how-to-tell-if-your-fun-is-wrong
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Supporting note: unless the designers of the game are sitting there at your table, 'Design Intent' doesn't matter one little spit more than you want it to. And the designers themselves would agree. Remember, Wizards' Lead Story Designer for D&D played a monster stat block for twenty minutes in one of the most beloved moments of modern broadcast Dungeons and Dragons.
Everything about Spurt's existence was expressly against The Design Intent Of The Game. Neither the DM for the game, nor Spurt's player, nor the millions watching, cared. D&D 5e's Lead Story Designer played a cracked-out kobold for twenty minutes, putting the party in absolute stitches with zany antics, before getting flattened by a fire giant and it was beautiful.
Stop using the assumed opinions of people you've never met as weapons against fellow players, please. Especially when those people would absolutely not be okay with their names and positions being used to do any such thing.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently broken in here, you got lucky and rolled all your stats well, just as easily you could have ended up with something like this: 9 8 10 7 9 5
That’s the deal with rolling for stats, the result is unpredictable, you hope for the best and sometimes get it but you might as well roll very badly, there is supposed to be big deviations using this method. If you or your DM think it will break the game, just use point buy or standard array and you end up with something more average. With those starting stats you have plenty of room to take feats instead of ASIs, which is much more fun. And even with good stats your character at low levels will be limited by low hp, proficiency bonus, few class abilities and so on, yeah, this is a very powerful character but I wouldn’t call him gamebreaking.
I do agree, as long as this is what happens. However, most I know who roll for stats have a get out clause if they roll badly, which basically turns out into a chance to get extremely high stats but no chance of low ones.
And there you have it. TCoE custom origin doesn't break anything. If you actually follow the written rules, it's fine, and custom origins can actually help to level out discrepancies in power caused by rolling high and low. However, if there are house rules which allow everyone to keep rolling until they get amazing stats in everything, things start to break....
Yet somehow this is the fault of custom origins?
I was going to comment pointing out that rolling stats, unless you roll them in order, is not really any different with or without Tashas if your goal is hig hstats - if you want high Strength, you pick a race with +2 Str and then put your high roll into Str, giving you a high Str stat (18-20 if you roll well).
But it seems the discussion has now evolved to what the writers want, how the rules work (or don't work), semantics over percentages vs the number of instances of the word "really" in a sentence, and contains the wonderful phrase "bohemian failure monkey", which I now love. The phrase, not a monkey.
As for the "purpose of the game" - to enjoy it- in whatever way suits you! powergame, BFM, roleplay, whatever you like to do, as long as it doesn't make it un-fun for someone else, you're doing it right!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
You don't have nearly large enough of a sample size to be making these kinds of definitive statements. Grilling LeBattery about their half-orc and whatever other smattering of similar conversations you've had on these forums doesn't cut it.
This is an incredibly insulting thing to insinuate about people. Please stop questioning whether people actually care about this because of the sociopolitical ramifications. You have been in conversations with people that talk about how past D&D design philosophy has been harmful to them. It would mean a lot to a lot of people on here if you could show some respect towards the veracity of what people talk about and avoid questioning motives.
This conclusion also misses the mark because you fail to take into account that humans get to have a multi-faceted relationship with whatever they want, and invariably do. It is in fact possible to simultaneously appreciate the ToCe racial design philosophy as an important step forward in the sociopolitical arena, believe that it opens up player freedom to create exactly the character they want from a roleplay perspective and enjoy the mechanical side of tweaking characters with these new rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
ASIs are definitionally about numbers. Any example that anyone gives you, you will construe as optimization. A wizard puts the +2 in INT? Optimization! A wizard puts the +2 in CHA, because they want to be better at diplomacy? Optimization! Anyone puts the +2 in DEX to get better AC and initiative? Optimization! Powergaming!
Every ability score is useful in D&D. Therefore, any increase to any ability score can be construed as powergaming. You'll never be satisfied, and you'll always move the goalposts to label anyone customizing their origin as a powergamer. You are arguing in bad faith. Your criticism is lame. You're ignoring or mislabeling the intent of other people, ignoring and mislabeling the stated intent of the designers, and generally denigrating whole swaths of players while hiding behind "but I didn't use the word 'munchkin'..."
A player can have his Wizard put a +2 into Cha AND a +2 into Int at level 0 with the 27 point buy. All the things that players does with the new mechanics pretty much can be done with any of the older systems. But new mechanics make it easier, with less penalties. I would love to have a Stout Halfling be able to move around his species stat bonuses to make the perfect Hex Rogue, with 2 levels of Hexblade and the rest Rogue. But with the 27 point buy system, there are a lot of tradeoffs doing so, including an odd number, likely in Int or Con. But voila!, with a wave of the new rules, those tradeoffs disappear.
Vince, its really not a good idea to separate players into "good" and "weak", it makes you sound arrogant and its very gatekeeper-y language, no one new is going to want to play if one of the official rulebooks is deemed only to be for weak players.
Also, you can have a challenging game with firm rules whilst also using Tasha's *gasp* and having house rules. Its not mutually exclusive. And calling players weak for using Tasha's is just flat out wrong, no one is a better or worse player for using it.
For someone so interested in following the rules so much you seem to have missed an entire rule book, and you also missed a pretty important note with it, its optional, if you want your characters racial stats to remain as they are, then don't change them. There is nothing in Tasha's saying you have to change them.
"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game" - Dungeon Masters Guide
Maybe you missed this? A stat bonus can also have ramifications on how you view your character from a roleplaying perspective. Having that +4 allows for a greater sense of immersion within the role of diplomatic old guy for LeBattery.
I know my stat bonuses directly correspond to how I feel about my character's personality, appearance and history. If I want to play a street-smart, hard-nosed investigator I'm not going to be satisfied with a 12 in intelligence, wisdom or charisma because each of them cover an aspect of what I want my character's most defining features to be and reflecting that in how good they are at finding and deciphering clues, reading the room, interrogating witnesses and sensing danger helps me embrace the character concept. It is in fact possible for a strong ability score to have a relationship with more than just number-crunching optimization. Any part of the character sheet can be used to help the player's immersion in playing the role of that character.
I'm not really sure what you're expecting this one example to look like. People's appreciation of the new racial design philosophy isn't going to be reflected on a character sheet. It's going to be reflected in the types of new players that come to the game, or players returning after a bad experience caused by past racial design. You and I have been in conversations where people talk about that and point to Tasha's being a nice step forward. So as far as I'm concerned you have been given your one example, it's just not in the form you're looking for.
I do not understand your need to get people to be honest about their motives when playing D&D. This whole "just be honest" thing is really insulting. As if people owe you or anyone an explanation as to why or how they build their characters.
I would ask you to do the same. Just because it is not a concern of yours does not mean it is not a MAJOR concern for other people. No one is shoving this down your throat. It's optional. Constantly questioning people's honesty around the subject is not the respect you are asking for here.
Nothing is ever just one thing Vince. Tasha's is a tool for all types of players with all types of motives.
As far as the title of the thread, I think the word "Broken" gets thrown around entirely too much in the D&D community. No, it isn't broken. If someone high rolled an 18 then they can find a way to make a character with a 20 starting stat with or without Tasha's. Small numerical advantages like this can be easily adapted to by the DM if necessary when creating encounters and does not present a situation that exploits part of the system like say, the Coffeelock.
Yes, you did. "none of the people who use the rule do it because of what have been called by some here noble reasons"
LeBattery's example is your fabled counter-example, but you keep insisting it isn't, because you can't admit that you're wrong.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorLet's stay on topic. Posts that were deviating off-topic to call others names and discuss name calling have been removed.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
The point is that, yes, people can potentially get the same score with point buy, without the racial ASI. However, that character will by definition be mechanically worse than one which had the racial ASI on that stat.
If I wish to make a Barbarian, there are a few races which are significantly better than others. If I wanted, without TCoE, to make a Barbarian which had the same Strength and Constitution as, say, a Half Orc which ended up with 15 Str and Con, I would necessarily have to reduce several other scores to do so. Because the Point Buy system puts such a heavy weight on the higher scores, I will have sacrificed 6 points to get to this, so the other 4 ability scores will have lost an average of 1.5 each. Even if I have a +2/+1 on another 2 stats, these will necessarily be worth less because they are on stats which a Barbarian wouldn't generally put a big stat in.
This also ignores the fact that the standard points buy system tops out at 15. Instead, I could have used point buy to get the same array with a Half-Orc, but the racial ASIs bump that to a 17 Str and 16 Con. These would be impossible with a race which did not have Str/Con ASIs, so again, the Half Orc is objectively better.
Now, you may call this power gaming. It isn't. It is a heavy advantage towards certain races being certain classes, which is basically determinism. Half Orcs are good barbarians and fighters, but bad wizards and warlocks. If you want to make a Half Orc Wizard, it will never be as good as a Gnome Wizard. To play outside the stereotypical roles for the race you choose, or to choose a race for the role you wish to play which is not the normal one, you must accept a significant disadvantage.
TCoE's system, on the other hand, removes this penalty. I can explore unusual combinations, like a Half Orc Wizard or a Gnome Barbarian, without having to accept a large penalty to their core skills. I don't have to be bad at the classes core skills to be different. It opens up huge swathes of new, exciting options, removing barriers to playing interesting new concepts.
Now, I am pretty certain someone will come back and call me a Power Gamer for wanting to be as good as I can be at my classes core skills. If that's the way you wish to interpret it, go ahead, but you are wrong. I just don't want to come up with an interesting character as a Gnome Barbarian, but then look at it and think, "A Half Orc, or a Dragonborn, would be better at this, and I could have made the backstory fit... Was it really worth purposely making myself worse?"
This...
The idea of "Powergaming" has lost all meaning as its definition is vastly different depending on who you are talking to. If you want a 16 to start in your main stat are you optimizing? yeah for sure....is that powergaming? Of course not....thats just playing a character well.
What if you do 16 DEX and 16 CON for a fighter? Thats just prudent to do.
If you like the aesthetic of a dwarf rogue....why would it be terrible if you did a +2 Dex Dwarf who was weak and couldn't grow a proper beard as a lad so he compensated by getting quick and stealing/sneak attacking the bully dwarves. It fits narratively, has good RP potential ("Hey is that an overgrown gnome or is that a beardless dwarf??"), and the player gets to do what they would have done with a different race anyway?
It hurts no one and only allows for better creativity.
You keep saying that the book that shall not be named is "optional". It is not optional in AL, and WOTC has already made it clear that future reprints of the PHB WILL include these new mechanics, and NOT the existing mechanics. The grey box in the Gothic Lineages UA made that explicit. So when I have new players arrive at my table (as will happen since I play and DM primarily at a game cafe), there is going to be a lot of confusion and disappointment when I tell a new player "sorry, that version of the PHB is not canon at my table".