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".
So you don't have any table rules posted for new players, specificaly with regards to character creation? Standard ability generation, which is rolling for stats? All races and classes allowed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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".
What AL choose to do is up to them. You don't have to take part in AL if you disagree with the ruleset they choose to use.
I have not seen anywhere which says "reprints of the PHB WILL include these new mechanics, and NOT the existing mechanics". If you can indicate where this has been said, I would like to see that.
"The grey box in the Gothic Lineages UA" indicated that any new races/lineages in future content will follow this pattern, but as with any new content, you will have the choice of whether to use them, and hence they remain optional. Heck, it isn't even difficult for you to say "I'll allow this new race/lineage, but you must put the ASI in this stat".
If this is at a game cafe and you are going to rule out new content from being used, that's still your decision. It is also others' decision if they wish to play at your table. If people are disappointed that you choose not to allow the content, they can always make the decision not to play at your table. I'm sure it will get around fairly quickly that you don't like that content and refuse to allow its use, so people will be able to decide in advance whether they wish to play by your rules. If they don't, they can choose not to. It's an option.
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".
So you don't have any table rules posted for new players, specificaly with regards to character creation? Standard ability generation, which is rolling for stats? All races and classes allowed?
I do indeed have a ton of House Rules, available in both soft and hard copy, that I urge my players to read.
All make the game more restrictive, or more difficult. But none of them deal with char creation. I tell my players 'any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..." All are game mechanics based. All are easy to substitute into a session seamlessly. But char creation, and the allowance of spell/skill swapping, that goes directly to the char sheet, and those changes take far far longer to alter/implement. I have seen how long it takes even an experienced player to spin up a char, let alone a new player. That chews into precious game time.
And now, we will have new players showing up with one PHB with a whole bunch of stuff that older ones do not. These are not changes that can be waved as errata. That is going to cause chaos and headaches for those DM's that hold onto the traditional values/ mechanics.
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".
So you don't have any table rules posted for new players, specificaly with regards to character creation? Standard ability generation, which is rolling for stats? All races and classes allowed?
I do indeed have a ton of House Rules, available in both soft and hard copy, that I urge my players to read.
All make the game more restrictive, or more difficult. But none of them deal with char creation. I tell my players 'any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..." All are game mechanics based. All are easy to substitute into a session seamlessly. But char creation, and the allowance of spell/skill swapping, that goes directly to the char sheet, and those changes take far far longer to alter/implement. I have seen how long it takes even an experienced player to spin up a char, let alone a new player. That chews into precious game time.
And now, we will have new players showing up with one PHB with a whole bunch of stuff that older ones do not. These are not changes that can be waved as errata. That is going to cause chaos and headaches for those DM's that hold onto the traditional values/ mechanics.
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".
What AL choose to do is up to them. You don't have to take part in AL if you disagree with the ruleset they choose to use.
I have not seen anywhere which says "reprints of the PHB WILL include these new mechanics, and NOT the existing mechanics". If you can indicate where this has been said, I would like to see that.
"The grey box in the Gothic Lineages UA" indicated that any new races/lineages in future content will follow this pattern, but as with any new content, you will have the choice of whether to use them, and hence they remain optional. Heck, it isn't even difficult for you to say "I'll allow this new race/lineage, but you must put the ASI in this stat".
If this is at a game cafe and you are going to rule out new content from being used, that's still your decision. It is also others' decision if they wish to play at your table. If people are disappointed that you choose not to allow the content, they can always make the decision not to play at your table. I'm sure it will get around fairly quickly that you don't like that content and refuse to allow its use, so people will be able to decide in advance whether they wish to play by your rules. If they don't, they can choose not to. It's an option.
I was only half-kidding when I told the cafe owner I was going to put a sign up that said "No Tasha's" on the wall by my table. Pre-Covid, on any given Saturday, there would be 4 or 5 DM's running 5e games, including one AL game. And yes, I have the well-deserved reputation as the "hard-ass DM". But I still get players who want a challenging game, played within the 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'..."
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.
Yeah, Min/Maxing, Optimizer, Powergamer, and Munchkin have all been used interchangeably here and elsewhere so much at this point that they all have ended up meaning the same thing whenever they seem to be brought up in conversation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
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".
So you don't have any table rules posted for new players, specificaly with regards to character creation? Standard ability generation, which is rolling for stats? All races and classes allowed?
I do indeed have a ton of House Rules, available in both soft and hard copy, that I urge my players to read.
All make the game more restrictive, or more difficult. But none of them deal with char creation. I tell my players 'any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..." All are game mechanics based. All are easy to substitute into a session seamlessly. But char creation, and the allowance of spell/skill swapping, that goes directly to the char sheet, and those changes take far far longer to alter/implement. I have seen how long it takes even an experienced player to spin up a char, let alone a new player. That chews into precious game time.
And now, we will have new players showing up with one PHB with a whole bunch of stuff that older ones do not. These are not changes that can be waved as errata. That is going to cause chaos and headaches for those DM's that hold onto the traditional values/ mechanics.
Then what's stopping you from adding "no floating racial modifiers and no custom lineages" to "any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..."? You're already specifying a statline generation method, you're saying Xanathar's is allowed but (presumably) Volo's isn't, and you're saying you have modified a bunch of mechanics. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming confusion and disappointment might ensue if people don't know about your table's rules regarding what Tasha's may or may not change about future PHB printings rings a bit hollow when confusion and disappointment might already ensue if people don't know about your choice for point-buy and that you allow one specific sourcebook.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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".
So you don't have any table rules posted for new players, specificaly with regards to character creation? Standard ability generation, which is rolling for stats? All races and classes allowed?
I do indeed have a ton of House Rules, available in both soft and hard copy, that I urge my players to read.
All make the game more restrictive, or more difficult. But none of them deal with char creation. I tell my players 'any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..." All are game mechanics based. All are easy to substitute into a session seamlessly. But char creation, and the allowance of spell/skill swapping, that goes directly to the char sheet, and those changes take far far longer to alter/implement. I have seen how long it takes even an experienced player to spin up a char, let alone a new player. That chews into precious game time.
And now, we will have new players showing up with one PHB with a whole bunch of stuff that older ones do not. These are not changes that can be waved as errata. That is going to cause chaos and headaches for those DM's that hold onto the traditional values/ mechanics.
Then what's stopping you from adding "no floating racial modifiers and no custom lineages" to "any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..."? You're already specifying a statline generation method, you're saying Xanathar's is allowed but (presumably) Volo's isn't, and you're saying you have modified a bunch of mechanics. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming confusion and disappointment might ensue if people don't know about your table's rules regarding what Tasha's may or may not change about future PHB printings rings a bit hollow when confusion and disappointment might already ensue if people don't know about your choice for point-buy and that you allow one specific sourcebook.
Yeah sounds like a communication issue....If you clearly state what your game incorporates then there should be no problem. If people do not want to play with the rules you have outlined...then it sounds like they have other tables to play at?
I am not seeing anything here that would mean Tasha's shouldn't exist if you limit to PHB + XGtE?
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".
Yes, the new Gothic Lineages UA doesn't have pre-decided stats, but what would a reborn get? Are they more charismatic or strong? Do they focus on wisdom or intelligence? Its not like a dwarf, where there is a cultural pre-set idea of what they are like. You could say your reborn was a dwarf before they died, or were they a human? You can add some flavour to it.
Until 6e, which is probably quite far away, you can always use the given stat increases for the races you play, and realistically you can probably do the same for 6e. And any new races you really want to play, either try out the new rules, or think about what makes sense for that race, and stick to that forever.
And what happens when a new player, who uses a digital tool for characters, tries to play at your table, but the tool they use is updated and doesn't have the current pre-given stats? Because they wont be able to load up an old version of the PHB. Are you just going to deny all new players? Because that is an awful way to keep D&D alive.
And somethings things change, and we don't like it, but we have to deal with it. Maybe one day Wizards will announce 6e, and the fans will hate it, but its the people who grow up and move past it, those that champion the initial burst of 6e, who embrace it, that will keep D&D alive. Times change, you can either move with it, or be stuck in the past.
Also, call it Tasha's, its not cursed or evil, its a book, it makes it sound less childish than "the book that shall not be named", and to me it gives off Voldemort vibes, so you are comparing a Dungeons and Dragons book to a barely human genocidal villain from a 1990's fictional childrens book series. And on a scale of good to bad, Voldemort did a lot more bad than Tasha's
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
Yes, the new Gothic Lineages UA doesn't have pre-decided stats, but what would a reborn get? Are they more charismatic or strong? Do they focus on wisdom or intelligence? Its not like a dwarf, where there is a cultural pre-set idea of what they are like. You could say your reborn was a dwarf before they died, or were they a human? You can add some flavour to it.
Variant Humans and half-elves have always had floating racial ability modifiers in 5E. If that makes sense for the race/lineage, so be it, but that doesn't mean it applies for every race. I'll be homebrewing fixed ability mods for most, possibly all, of the lineages if/when they get published officially.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If a DM doesn't want to use the optional rules in Tasha that's perfectly fine. I just think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with the ability to swap a race's ASIs around to better suit the character.
Yes, the new Gothic Lineages UA doesn't have pre-decided stats, but what would a reborn get? Are they more charismatic or strong? Do they focus on wisdom or intelligence? Its not like a dwarf, where there is a cultural pre-set idea of what they are like. You could say your reborn was a dwarf before they died, or were they a human? You can add some flavour to it.
Variant Humans and half-elves have always had floating racial ability modifiers in 5E. If that makes sense for the race/lineage, so be it, but that doesn't mean it applies for every race. I'll be homebrewing fixed ability mods for most, possibly all, of the lineages if/when they get published officially.
Yeah this is actually something I wish they would do is give fixed ability mods for the ones that make sense (the gothic ones are kinda like you are a halfing that got turned into a vampire or undead so it almost makes sense to leave them floating) but for dragonborn and the fey ones I would prefer they give ability score improvements and allow people to use Tasha's or not.
I am not seeing anything here that would mean Tasha's shouldn't exist if you limit to PHB + XGtE?
Neither am I. Plus, honestly, Tasha's effect on future PHB printings is going to be minimal at most and quite likely nonexistent. Nothing says the policy of not specifying racial ability modifiers going forward will be applied retroactively to existing books, PHB or others. It's just going to be a minor annoyance for me to homebrew them for future releases. I'd have prefered it to be otherwise (and it'd have been comparatively easier otherwise) but it's a pretty tiny bump in the road all things considered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rolling for ability scores is not broken, with or without Tasha's. You've just been trained to think it is.
DM here. I always make my player's roll their stats (with a custom method I designed). To me, standard array and point buy are both ... boring.
What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner, now you have options to choose from more feats, even some that that might not necessarily be "optimised" for your "build". It means you actually get to make some interesting choices as your character levels up.
I think the 3.5e/PF level of crunch was too much for a mixed group, maybe if everyone is a power gamer it's okay. Feats in 5e I think allow for a good level of crunch, but if you start from standard array you are probably spending your first two ASIs on getting your primary stat to 20. With Tasha's it's a little easier. But given that the majority of game play takes place in tiers I and II, there's not a lot of room for feats starting with a standard array.
Now, if you are playing a game without feats, then sure. Start from a standard array. But with feats there's no harm in having a boost to start with, because the stat cap of 20 is there. And once a player has chosen a subclass, there's precious little left for them to choose from as they level up.
I will admit, in the style of game I run I'm not pulling any punches. If the dice say your PC dies, then they die, I ain't gonna fudge them. So I don't mind having PCs that are a little above the curve so their survivability is increased.
Rolling for ability scores is not broken, with or without Tasha's. You've just been trained to think it is.
DM here. I always make my player's roll their stats (with a custom method I designed). To me, standard array and point buy are both ... boring.
What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner, now you have options to choose from more feats, even some that that might not necessarily be "optimised" for your "build". It means you actually get to make some interesting choices as your character levels up.
I think the 3.5e/PF level of crunch was too much for a mixed group, maybe if everyone is a power gamer it's okay. Feats in 5e I think allow for a good level of crunch, but if you start from standard array you are probably spending your first two ASIs on getting your primary stat to 20. With Tasha's it's a little easier. But given that the majority of game play takes place in tiers I and II, there's not a lot of room for feats starting with a standard array.
Now, if you are playing a game without feats, then sure. Start from a standard array. But with feats there's no harm in having a boost to start with, because the stat cap of 20 is there. And once a player has chosen a subclass, there's precious little left for them to choose from as they level up.
I will admit, in the style of game I run I'm not pulling any punches. If the dice say your PC dies, then they die, I ain't gonna fudge them. So I don't mind having PCs that are a little above the curve so their survivability is increased.
YMMV.
Bingo. At least you admitted the obvious: "What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner".
As the original poster said, rolling 4d6 and the book that shall not be named char mechanics leads to over-powered chars, when compared to a 27 Point Buy char. It has been done to death that mathematically, 4d6 provides higher stats, and the book that shall not be named uber-easy mechanics to move the additional points around exacerbates that problem. If players want to take Feats with their first two ASI's with a baseline of a 27 Point Buy, there is nothing stopping that at all. But most won't, for the very reason you stated.
You say you run a tough game. So do I. But I also don't want to deal with:
a. Potential wild variations in player strengths, thanks to 4d6.
b. In general, higher overall stats, due to 4d6 and these ridiculous new game mechanics.
I also use point buy in the game I run, with the intention to keep players at about the same level, rather than say having one character who got super great rolls and another who feels pretty meh, or got a bunch of middling rolls that doesn't allow for pronounced strengths and weaknesses if that's what the player wants.
I have no problem with letting them swap their ASIs though because if it's okay for an elf rogue to have +2 dex or a tiefling warlock to have +2 cha etc, or for humans/half elves to have points to put in whatever they want, I see no reason why I can't say let let the dwarf artificer get a +2 int.
Rolling for ability scores is not broken, with or without Tasha's. You've just been trained to think it is.
DM here. I always make my player's roll their stats (with a custom method I designed). To me, standard array and point buy are both ... boring.
What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner, now you have options to choose from more feats, even some that that might not necessarily be "optimised" for your "build". It means you actually get to make some interesting choices as your character levels up.
I think the 3.5e/PF level of crunch was too much for a mixed group, maybe if everyone is a power gamer it's okay. Feats in 5e I think allow for a good level of crunch, but if you start from standard array you are probably spending your first two ASIs on getting your primary stat to 20. With Tasha's it's a little easier. But given that the majority of game play takes place in tiers I and II, there's not a lot of room for feats starting with a standard array.
Now, if you are playing a game without feats, then sure. Start from a standard array. But with feats there's no harm in having a boost to start with, because the stat cap of 20 is there. And once a player has chosen a subclass, there's precious little left for them to choose from as they level up.
I will admit, in the style of game I run I'm not pulling any punches. If the dice say your PC dies, then they die, I ain't gonna fudge them. So I don't mind having PCs that are a little above the curve so their survivability is increased.
YMMV.
Bingo. At least you admitted the obvious: "What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner".
As the original poster said, rolling 4d6 and the book that shall not be named char mechanics leads to over-powered chars, when compared to a 27 Point Buy char. It has been done to death that mathematically, 4d6 provides higher stats, and the book that shall not be named uber-easy mechanics to move the additional points around exacerbates that problem. If players want to take Feats with their first two ASI's with a baseline of a 27 Point Buy, there is nothing stopping that at all. But most won't, for the very reason you stated.
You say you run a tough game. So do I. But I also don't want to deal with:
a. Potential wild variations in player strengths, thanks to 4d6.
b. In general, higher overall stats, due to 4d6 and these ridiculous new game mechanics.
You may say those, but I'm pretty sure you can get a +2 in your main stat whatever class you choose, just by selecting the "right" race for your class. So TCoE doesn't really change the "brokenness" of the system, it just stops them having to choose the "right" race for their class to get a +2 in their classes primary stat.
Bingo. At least you admitted the obvious: "What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner".
As the original poster said, rolling 4d6 and the book that shall not be named char mechanics leads to over-powered chars, when compared to a 27 Point Buy char. It has been done to death that mathematically, 4d6 provides higher stats, and the book that shall not be named uber-easy mechanics to move the additional points around exacerbates that problem. If players want to take Feats with their first two ASI's with a baseline of a 27 Point Buy, there is nothing stopping that at all. But most won't, for the very reason you stated.
You say you run a tough game. So do I. But I also don't want to deal with:
a. Potential wild variations in player strengths, thanks to 4d6.
b. In general, higher overall stats, due to 4d6 and these ridiculous new game mechanics.
With regard to b., I guess the difference is that I don't see having PC's with high stats as a problem, or even as overpowered. As the DM I have infinite choice. I can always come up with an encounter that will result in a TPK, if I wanted. But you know... some (most?) players enjoy being heroic.
I agree that a. can be an issue. Balance between party members is important, people don't usually want to play the "sidekick". But with a little bit of curation during character creation you can round off the pointy edges of probability extremes.
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 that it not ok for me, in my opinion if you want to roll for your stats you take the full deal, you don’t get to cherry-pick the parts you like and don’t like. If I decide to roll for stats, I agree to accept whatever hand I was dealt, play with that and don’t complain or try to get out of the bad roll, if I want guaranteed stats I take point buy or standard array. The whole point of rolling for stats imo is that there is a possibility of a high reward (very good roll) but the risk of getting a poor roll is also high, a get-out-of-a-bad-roll clause is what unbalances the game for me, the only situation in which you should be able to re-roll is if you end up with something basically unplayable, say 5 4 5 3 3 6, this is where I would forgo fairness and balance in favour of player enjoyment but only in extreme cases, not if the stats are slightly to moderately below average.
So you don't have any table rules posted for new players, specificaly with regards to character creation? Standard ability generation, which is rolling for stats? All races and classes allowed?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What AL choose to do is up to them. You don't have to take part in AL if you disagree with the ruleset they choose to use.
I have not seen anywhere which says "reprints of the PHB WILL include these new mechanics, and NOT the existing mechanics". If you can indicate where this has been said, I would like to see that.
"The grey box in the Gothic Lineages UA" indicated that any new races/lineages in future content will follow this pattern, but as with any new content, you will have the choice of whether to use them, and hence they remain optional. Heck, it isn't even difficult for you to say "I'll allow this new race/lineage, but you must put the ASI in this stat".
If this is at a game cafe and you are going to rule out new content from being used, that's still your decision. It is also others' decision if they wish to play at your table. If people are disappointed that you choose not to allow the content, they can always make the decision not to play at your table. I'm sure it will get around fairly quickly that you don't like that content and refuse to allow its use, so people will be able to decide in advance whether they wish to play by your rules. If they don't, they can choose not to. It's an option.
I do indeed have a ton of House Rules, available in both soft and hard copy, that I urge my players to read.
All make the game more restrictive, or more difficult. But none of them deal with char creation. I tell my players 'any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..." All are game mechanics based. All are easy to substitute into a session seamlessly. But char creation, and the allowance of spell/skill swapping, that goes directly to the char sheet, and those changes take far far longer to alter/implement. I have seen how long it takes even an experienced player to spin up a char, let alone a new player. That chews into precious game time.
And now, we will have new players showing up with one PHB with a whole bunch of stuff that older ones do not. These are not changes that can be waved as errata. That is going to cause chaos and headaches for those DM's that hold onto the traditional values/ mechanics.
What has changed about the PHB?
I was only half-kidding when I told the cafe owner I was going to put a sign up that said "No Tasha's" on the wall by my table. Pre-Covid, on any given Saturday, there would be 4 or 5 DM's running 5e games, including one AL game. And yes, I have the well-deserved reputation as the "hard-ass DM". But I still get players who want a challenging game, played within the rules.
Yeah, Min/Maxing, Optimizer, Powergamer, and Munchkin have all been used interchangeably here and elsewhere so much at this point that they all have ended up meaning the same thing whenever they seem to be brought up in conversation.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Then what's stopping you from adding "no floating racial modifiers and no custom lineages" to "any species/class/sub-class in PHB and XGTE is fine, but use 27 point buy, and here are the modified rules on Grappling, Falling, HP recovery, Counterspell/Dispel Magic, Carrying Capacities, Jumping..."? You're already specifying a statline generation method, you're saying Xanathar's is allowed but (presumably) Volo's isn't, and you're saying you have modified a bunch of mechanics. Nothing wrong with that, but claiming confusion and disappointment might ensue if people don't know about your table's rules regarding what Tasha's may or may not change about future PHB printings rings a bit hollow when confusion and disappointment might already ensue if people don't know about your choice for point-buy and that you allow one specific sourcebook.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah sounds like a communication issue....If you clearly state what your game incorporates then there should be no problem. If people do not want to play with the rules you have outlined...then it sounds like they have other tables to play at?
I am not seeing anything here that would mean Tasha's shouldn't exist if you limit to PHB + XGtE?
Yes, the new Gothic Lineages UA doesn't have pre-decided stats, but what would a reborn get? Are they more charismatic or strong? Do they focus on wisdom or intelligence? Its not like a dwarf, where there is a cultural pre-set idea of what they are like. You could say your reborn was a dwarf before they died, or were they a human? You can add some flavour to it.
Until 6e, which is probably quite far away, you can always use the given stat increases for the races you play, and realistically you can probably do the same for 6e. And any new races you really want to play, either try out the new rules, or think about what makes sense for that race, and stick to that forever.
And what happens when a new player, who uses a digital tool for characters, tries to play at your table, but the tool they use is updated and doesn't have the current pre-given stats? Because they wont be able to load up an old version of the PHB. Are you just going to deny all new players? Because that is an awful way to keep D&D alive.
And somethings things change, and we don't like it, but we have to deal with it. Maybe one day Wizards will announce 6e, and the fans will hate it, but its the people who grow up and move past it, those that champion the initial burst of 6e, who embrace it, that will keep D&D alive. Times change, you can either move with it, or be stuck in the past.
Also, call it Tasha's, its not cursed or evil, its a book, it makes it sound less childish than "the book that shall not be named", and to me it gives off Voldemort vibes, so you are comparing a Dungeons and Dragons book to a barely human genocidal villain from a 1990's fictional childrens book series. And on a scale of good to bad, Voldemort did a lot more bad than Tasha's
"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
Variant Humans and half-elves have always had floating racial ability modifiers in 5E. If that makes sense for the race/lineage, so be it, but that doesn't mean it applies for every race. I'll be homebrewing fixed ability mods for most, possibly all, of the lineages if/when they get published officially.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
If a DM doesn't want to use the optional rules in Tasha that's perfectly fine. I just think people are making a mountain out of a molehill with the ability to swap a race's ASIs around to better suit the character.
Yeah this is actually something I wish they would do is give fixed ability mods for the ones that make sense (the gothic ones are kinda like you are a halfing that got turned into a vampire or undead so it almost makes sense to leave them floating) but for dragonborn and the fey ones I would prefer they give ability score improvements and allow people to use Tasha's or not.
Neither am I. Plus, honestly, Tasha's effect on future PHB printings is going to be minimal at most and quite likely nonexistent. Nothing says the policy of not specifying racial ability modifiers going forward will be applied retroactively to existing books, PHB or others. It's just going to be a minor annoyance for me to homebrew them for future releases. I'd have prefered it to be otherwise (and it'd have been comparatively easier otherwise) but it's a pretty tiny bump in the road all things considered.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Once again. Stay on topic.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Rolling for ability scores is not broken, with or without Tasha's. You've just been trained to think it is.
DM here. I always make my player's roll their stats (with a custom method I designed). To me, standard array and point buy are both ... boring.
What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner, now you have options to choose from more feats, even some that that might not necessarily be "optimised" for your "build". It means you actually get to make some interesting choices as your character levels up.
I think the 3.5e/PF level of crunch was too much for a mixed group, maybe if everyone is a power gamer it's okay. Feats in 5e I think allow for a good level of crunch, but if you start from standard array you are probably spending your first two ASIs on getting your primary stat to 20. With Tasha's it's a little easier. But given that the majority of game play takes place in tiers I and II, there's not a lot of room for feats starting with a standard array.
Now, if you are playing a game without feats, then sure. Start from a standard array. But with feats there's no harm in having a boost to start with, because the stat cap of 20 is there. And once a player has chosen a subclass, there's precious little left for them to choose from as they level up.
I will admit, in the style of game I run I'm not pulling any punches. If the dice say your PC dies, then they die, I ain't gonna fudge them. So I don't mind having PCs that are a little above the curve so their survivability is increased.
YMMV.
Bingo. At least you admitted the obvious: "What rolling does is allow for more feats to be chosen. You hit 20 in your primary stat sooner".
As the original poster said, rolling 4d6 and the book that shall not be named char mechanics leads to over-powered chars, when compared to a 27 Point Buy char. It has been done to death that mathematically, 4d6 provides higher stats, and the book that shall not be named uber-easy mechanics to move the additional points around exacerbates that problem. If players want to take Feats with their first two ASI's with a baseline of a 27 Point Buy, there is nothing stopping that at all. But most won't, for the very reason you stated.
You say you run a tough game. So do I. But I also don't want to deal with:
a. Potential wild variations in player strengths, thanks to 4d6.
b. In general, higher overall stats, due to 4d6 and these ridiculous new game mechanics.
I also use point buy in the game I run, with the intention to keep players at about the same level, rather than say having one character who got super great rolls and another who feels pretty meh, or got a bunch of middling rolls that doesn't allow for pronounced strengths and weaknesses if that's what the player wants.
I have no problem with letting them swap their ASIs though because if it's okay for an elf rogue to have +2 dex or a tiefling warlock to have +2 cha etc, or for humans/half elves to have points to put in whatever they want, I see no reason why I can't say let let the dwarf artificer get a +2 int.
You may say those, but I'm pretty sure you can get a +2 in your main stat whatever class you choose, just by selecting the "right" race for your class. So TCoE doesn't really change the "brokenness" of the system, it just stops them having to choose the "right" race for their class to get a +2 in their classes primary stat.
With regard to b., I guess the difference is that I don't see having PC's with high stats as a problem, or even as overpowered. As the DM I have infinite choice. I can always come up with an encounter that will result in a TPK, if I wanted. But you know... some (most?) players enjoy being heroic.
I agree that a. can be an issue. Balance between party members is important, people don't usually want to play the "sidekick". But with a little bit of curation during character creation you can round off the pointy edges of probability extremes.
And that it not ok for me, in my opinion if you want to roll for your stats you take the full deal, you don’t get to cherry-pick the parts you like and don’t like. If I decide to roll for stats, I agree to accept whatever hand I was dealt, play with that and don’t complain or try to get out of the bad roll, if I want guaranteed stats I take point buy or standard array. The whole point of rolling for stats imo is that there is a possibility of a high reward (very good roll) but the risk of getting a poor roll is also high, a get-out-of-a-bad-roll clause is what unbalances the game for me, the only situation in which you should be able to re-roll is if you end up with something basically unplayable, say 5 4 5 3 3 6, this is where I would forgo fairness and balance in favour of player enjoyment but only in extreme cases, not if the stats are slightly to moderately below average.