As a point to the whole "if you super-minmax your stats you'll succeed as often as a Real Proper Built-Correctly Character but just fail MORE at the things you're weaker at, is that what you want?!" argument:
Yes, actually. Yes, that is exactly what some of us want.
For a new campaign we're doing the Session 0 for tonight, the server I'm playing on has an exceptionally generous stat generation system - you punch !goodstats into the dice tray and Avrae gives you three different arrays, 4d6kh3 with a floor of 75, and you may choose which array to use. Players regularly roll 80+ point arrays using this system. I didn't design it and I do think it's overly generous, but it ain't my server so nyeh. Regardless, when I rolled my three-array choice for this game, I was given the following options:
I chose the second array, despite there being a 'better' BST available to me, precisely because it was/is God's perfect stat roll. When building a new character, I specifically look to be very good at the things I choose to be good at, absolute shit at the things I choose to be bad at, and distinctly meh at the things which are neither of those two ends. I actively enjoy having a-2 deep cut somewhere in my stats that causes me Capital "I" Issues in play and forces me to get creative or rely on my comrades to compensate for it. I also actively prefer for half my non-Deep Cut stats to be in the 0 to +1 range, average at best and things I cannot rely on without training. I saw that minimum-score, five-odd-stat, 75 BST roll in a server dominated by 80+ or even 90+-point Thuggernauts and I was delighted.
Sure, the second 15 is maybe a little generous. But to be frank, this character averages six to ten stat points behind everyone else in the party and I don't really care. Talisman does exactly what I want a D&D character to do, stat-wise - she is excellent within her specialization, she is terrible when confronted with her weakness, and she is okay-but-not-exceptional at things she does not choose to focus on. All is as it should be.
Frankly? When the DM for Saint of Graves asks my 6-Wisdom artificer for a Perception roll and I throw a dice at -2 because Star is untrained in Perception, it's a point of amusement for the party. "Star, roll Perception." "Oh boy! Let's see what I miss this time!" [Laughs around the table at some of the shit Star's managed to not notice in the past.] And when she does get a high natural roll and sees something - or even better, when she's the only one that doesn't flub her roll and is the only one that DOES see something? That's a great comedy point for the party and a way for the DM to have some fun hilariously narrating the results of that unlikely roll. Wouldn't be a thing that happened if I was never permitted to have more than two points of difference between the absolute best possible Expertise-boosted skill my character's spent her entire life honing and the untrained junk skill with no bonus whatsoever from her weakest stat.
Yes, I do want to Fail More(C) at the things I'm weak at. The difference between me and a Bohemian Failure Monkey is that I don't actively seek failure in all things at all times because failure is somehow more artistic than success. Success earned through talent, effort, and clever/stalwart play is the goal, not failure for its own sake.
Defeating challenges is the goal. Some players like to approach that differently than others is all.
This is the attitude I wish more people took when rolling for stats....If you get bad ones you roll with it not mitigate the loss until its a gain.
I hate when there is an "out" for rolling stats-- Example "If you roll lower than a 70 then you can pick to use Point-buy or Standard Array Instead"
It makes it so the only reason you are rolling for stats is to get better stats....just don't roll and give a heroic array or an increased point buy and skip the games.
OK, that's what I thought, you don't really care about the fantasy races "equality" which, by the way, is absolutely alright with me (because they are fantasy species and equality in all stats between all fantasy species is something that would be ridiculous). So that part of the argument for the Tasha's options is not what convinced you. To be honest, I've yet to meet someone who did it for that reason only, so I'm not surprised.
What are you talking about? I literally said I use the same statblock for all races and make no adjustments for them? That IS equality. An "Evoker" is an "Evoker" regardless of race.
If I want a Goblin Berserker, I don't take the "Berserker" stat block and say "well its a goblin so let me adjust stats accordingly". I just use the berserker block and say "its a goblin" I DO have equality between all fantasy races (at least in terms of innate ability). I implement racial identity NOT in the race's biology, but their culture in my world.
The reason the Tasha's stats only apply to PC's is because PC's are not NPC's and thus the rules of creating their ability scores are different.
OK, thanks for this, so what do their stats and classes look like ?
Fighter and druid(in that order).
But why does this matter? Even if I were to say the Half-Orc swapping STR for CHA was a sorcerer, it doesn't change the fact that the reason it was done was a story reason.
No, I'm saying that those who base their fondness for Tasha's options are, under the guise of "it's bad to have racial ability modifiers" mostly defending optimisation of a build for purely technical reasons, because the races have actually not changed at all in their games, just a few PCs even more optimised than before.
You can keep writing that, but you're still wrong.
You're putting words in people's mouths, constructing a strawman argument, and denigrating large numbers of players, all at the same time.
Who am I denigrating, exactly, in the sentence above ? And then, just prove me wrong. Just send me the stats of a character who has seen actual play, built with Tasha's rules, and which is not completely optimised technically.
Because so far, all the examples that I've seen around this site of characters built using Tasha's options have been built obviously to optimise the character technically. Look at the threads around this, at the builds proposed. And at the fact that, in the end, people do not really get rid of racial ability modifiers for the races, just for the PCs who want it technically.
And this thread is about the combination of unbalancing options, nothing more.
No, I'm saying that those who base their fondness for Tasha's options are, under the guise of "it's bad to have racial ability modifiers" mostly defending optimisation of a build for purely technical reasons, because the races have actually not changed at all in their games, just a few PCs even more optimised than before.
You can keep writing that, but you're still wrong.
You're putting words in people's mouths, constructing a strawman argument, and denigrating large numbers of players, all at the same time.
Who am I denigrating, exactly, in the sentence above ?
You're denigrating anyone who likes the Tasha's customized origin options for reasons that aren't powergaming. Hell, you seem to think it's impossible to have other reasons. Even though people in these very forums have stated their reasons, repeatedly. (You also tend to imply that "powergaming" is somehow a lesser form of playing, but that's par for the course for you, so.)
Nice dodge, though. So I take it you agree that you're putting words in people's mouths and making a strawman argument? It's good to accept things every once in a while... ;)
And then, just prove me wrong. Just send me the stats of a character who has seen actual play, built with Tasha's rules, and which is not completely optimised technically.
You'll have to wait a few months, for me at least. Current campaign started pre-Tasha's (and we are all humans).
You're denigrating anyone who likes the Tasha's customized origin options for reasons that aren't powergaming.
I'm really not. I just don't think they exist, I have never met any.
How do you not understand how that's an insult? You've "met" these people, on these forums. You just think they're lying, and demand they show "proof" of their own opinions and preferences.
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
So, once more, there is no correction of the bias of the game in terms of races, because the only changes are made on PCs. How does this further the equality of the races in terms of stats in the world ? Orcs, on average from the NPCs encountered, will have an Int of 7 and Elves will have an int of 11 (and it's the lowest I've found in the statblocks) ?
OMG what part aren't you getting of "I APPLY WHATEVER RACE TO WHAT EVER STATBLOCK" Just because I might use the "orc chieftain" stat-block doesn't mean its going to be an orc. If my party encounters an Orc, there is an even chance of it having 7 intelligence as it having 22. Premade Statblocks (for me) are just used as template. I don't care what "race" the statblock says it is, its going to be what ever my story requires at the time. Orcs will NOT have "an average of 7" and elves do NOT have an "average of 11" or whatever because I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NAME OF THE STAT BLOCK.
Yes the BASE GAME's orc and elf NPC's have those averages which I do not agree with. But when you pulled my own DMing into question by asking "Well do you account for it for NPCs?" You stopped talking about the base game. So no I do not actively adjust stats to match because I just DON'T USE premade racial NPC stats as written. That "Drow Priestess" statblock has just as much chance of being a kuo-toa as it does a pure-blood orc, as it does an actual drow as it does a sentient tree with cleric spells. There is no "AVERAGE EXAMPLE" of a race in my campaigns, because race and stats have no alignments in my campaigns.
So you are telling me that a player is playing a half-orc fighter who used Tasha to put his ASI in charisma instead of STR, is that it ? I'd really like to see the character sheet and what archetype of fighter he is playing.
Yes I am absolutely telling you this because that player is me? I have 2 campaigns going with the same group of people, one I DM and one I play. The elf is in the one I DM and I would hardly say that the bonus "+1" to wisdom is "Min-maxed". I don't use DnD beyond for anything other than forums so I can't link a character sheet (especially for the elf cause its not my character)
But the high charisma fighter is DEFINITELY mine. His Abilities are:
STR: 15
DEX: 8
CON: 14
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 18
With Tasha's skill expert in persuasion for diplomacy.
He is certainly not min-maxed
His +2 to CHA affects his combat NONE
And I did it knowing that it would purposefully nerf my character because Boris has seen too much war and would rather talk things out.
No his strength isn't abysmal or anything, a lifetime of physical activity DOES have its perks, But I specifically wanted to play a character past his physical prime who still has something left to protect.
I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
I know, right?
Anyway, the system still works as intended even if people complain about it. Because the very thing that people complain about is what was intended with the system.
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
How is this an 'I win' button? Is a half elf paladin an I win button? Is an elf rogue an 'I win' button? How are the race/class combos that already have ASIs in their main stats not I win buttons/broken but it's suddenly broken if a half elf can get +2 DEX instead?
Racial ASI bonuses aren't what make the races unique. It's their other features that do. Having all races except humans and half elves be stuck with an unchanging ASI bonus is silly.
Honestly ASI's should have been tied to backgrounds. It makes way more sense.
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
At the end of the day Vince an extra +1 to weapon attacks and damage wont make the game that much easier, it just means that you hit a bit more and if its soo game breaking then give the enemy an extra dice or two when rolling for hp or add a small amount, that fixes the issue.
Also you can easily incorporate a TCoE change into a backstory or something important to your character, for instance, this Aasimar barbarian is reclusive and does not interact much with society, instead choosing to protect the village from some threats alone and before they get close enough to alert the village guards. They dont suit the Aasimar's +2 CHA, Tashas makes it so you can incorporate this big changes in characters easily. But its important to remember that these are optional rules, and it is perfectly validif a DM allows their players to use these rules, they are not breaking D&D by doing so, just like its fine if you dont allow them at your table, just dont tell people they are "destroying D&D" by using these optional, alternative rules
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
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
How is this an 'I win' button? Is a half elf paladin an I win button? Is an elf rogue an 'I win' button? How are the race/class combos that already have ASIs in their main stats not I win buttons/broken but it's suddenly broken if a half elf can get +2 DEX instead?
I for one do believe that playing a Half-Elf Paladin is indeed cheesy unless you have a compelling reason to play one. And yeah, one of my chars is indeed a Half-Elf Paladin, and I have to keep creating self-imposed limitations on that char because it is an I-win button. And that is where I am actually playing within the traditional rules of 5e.
I am also playing a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue, because it is a natural role for that species, and I am having a blast with that char.
I don't whine and say "It is not fair that my Halfling can't get a +2 to Cha so I can make him an awesome Hexblade". Now, if you say your Hafling Scout Rogue gets a +2 in Cha, because his background is Guild Merchant that sells the pottery for his Halfling enclave, that I might buy. But like Lyxen, am waiting for the day I see a player do that, strictly for the RP value.
All the +2 in a good stat ultimately means is that in roughly 1/20 rolls with that stat, you'll succeed at something where you otherwise would have failed. Hardly an 'i win button.'
It's an advantage, sure, and a tangible one, but hardly game breaking or over powered.
I for one do believe that playing a Half-Elf Paladin is indeed cheesy unless you have a compelling reason to play one. And yeah, one of my chars is indeed a Half-Elf Paladin, and I have to keep creating self-imposed limitations on that char because it is an I-win button. And that is where I am actually playing within the traditional rules of 5e.
I am also playing a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue, because it is a natural role for that species, and I am having a blast with that char.
I don't whine and say "It is not fair that my Halfling can't get a +2 to Cha so I can make him an awesome Hexblade". Now, if you say your Hafling Scout Rogue gets a +2 in Cha, because his background is Guild Merchant that sells the pottery for his Halfling enclave, that I might buy. But like Lyxen, am waiting for the day I see a player do that, strictly for the RP value.
I have absolutely no clue how this is a issue with TCoE.
None of this is because of TCoE. Your players just have a different playstyle, that's perfectly fine. Some of our players do not.
I don't even get the whole "this is a powergamer's paradise" nonsense, ever since Tasha's has come up I haven't really seen a build that went from terrible to overpowered solely because of TCoE. Because moving a ASI around doesn't really change a whole lot of builds, it has made some people consider more weird builds like Dwarf Wizards, but those work basically about as great as they did pre-Tasha as they do post-Tashas.
Edit: I mean the racial customization options, I have seen some great builds using the TCoE subclasses but even then compared to the pre-existing overpowered builds they're at best equal or a bit better.
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
How is this an 'I win' button? Is a half elf paladin an I win button? Is an elf rogue an 'I win' button? How are the race/class combos that already have ASIs in their main stats not I win buttons/broken but it's suddenly broken if a half elf can get +2 DEX instead?
I for one do believe that playing a Half-Elf Paladin is indeed cheesy unless you have a compelling reason to play one. And yeah, one of my chars is indeed a Half-Elf Paladin, and I have to keep creating self-imposed limitations on that char because it is an I-win button. And that is where I am actually playing within the traditional rules of 5e.
I am also playing a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue, because it is a natural role for that species, and I am having a blast with that char.
So you are basically playing with the kind of character you complain about, but you can't accept that other people do the same thing? Just checking to see that I got it right.
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
How is this an 'I win' button? Is a half elf paladin an I win button? Is an elf rogue an 'I win' button? How are the race/class combos that already have ASIs in their main stats not I win buttons/broken but it's suddenly broken if a half elf can get +2 DEX instead?
I for one do believe that playing a Half-Elf Paladin is indeed cheesy unless you have a compelling reason to play one. And yeah, one of my chars is indeed a Half-Elf Paladin, and I have to keep creating self-imposed limitations on that char because it is an I-win button. And that is where I am actually playing within the traditional rules of 5e.
I am also playing a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue, because it is a natural role for that species, and I am having a blast with that char.
So you are basically playing with the kind of character you complain about, but you can't accept that other people do the same thing? Just checking to see that I got it right.
I don't think TCoE is "a power gamer's paradise" at all. I think the system TCoE had is actually a great way to roleplay more. Example: A half-orc wizard with +2 to INT decided to focus on learning instead of becoming more strong, and that's how they are a good wizard.
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bardof the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules.Sig.Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
Half-elves - a people known in the lore of Faerun that we all know certain folks place tremendous importance and value on as beings caught between cultures and societies, often treated as wanderers or ambassadors because they never truly feel at peace with wherever they are - cannot ever conceivably find solace and 'home' in a sense of purpose beyond themselves, swearing an Oath upon the forces of the universe to uphold an ideal in the face of wickedness, oppression, and the sort of close-minded scorn and superstition that cast them out from their own homes?
Half-elves with a class they're well-suited to are cheesy, except when you have a 'compelling' reason for the combo. Halflings with a class they're well-suited to is just a natural combination. I'm almost moved to ask for a list of all races and which classes are cheesy for them and which are natural and thus acceptable. Almost.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rolling for stats has always been broken, most ppl alternate to point buy or reroll if they get trash stats, so your often going with superior stats with a rolled character, sometimes with a glaring flaw, like a 4 in one stat.
The game is designed to handle some loaded stats, players often try to reach 18 or 20 by level 4 or 8 anyway, and technical features can be a lot more significant. As a DM currently running Hoard of the Dragon Queen, I can tell you, those stats are not enough to handle the brutal difficulty, and DMs exist to adjust difficulty for specifically these reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is the attitude I wish more people took when rolling for stats....If you get bad ones you roll with it not mitigate the loss until its a gain.
I hate when there is an "out" for rolling stats-- Example "If you roll lower than a 70 then you can pick to use Point-buy or Standard Array Instead"
It makes it so the only reason you are rolling for stats is to get better stats....just don't roll and give a heroic array or an increased point buy and skip the games.
What are you talking about? I literally said I use the same statblock for all races and make no adjustments for them? That IS equality. An "Evoker" is an "Evoker" regardless of race.
If I want a Goblin Berserker, I don't take the "Berserker" stat block and say "well its a goblin so let me adjust stats accordingly". I just use the berserker block and say "its a goblin" I DO have equality between all fantasy races (at least in terms of innate ability). I implement racial identity NOT in the race's biology, but their culture in my world.
The reason the Tasha's stats only apply to PC's is because PC's are not NPC's and thus the rules of creating their ability scores are different.
Fighter and druid(in that order).
But why does this matter? Even if I were to say the Half-Orc swapping STR for CHA was a sorcerer, it doesn't change the fact that the reason it was done was a story reason.
Look one post above you....
You're denigrating anyone who likes the Tasha's customized origin options for reasons that aren't powergaming. Hell, you seem to think it's impossible to have other reasons. Even though people in these very forums have stated their reasons, repeatedly. (You also tend to imply that "powergaming" is somehow a lesser form of playing, but that's par for the course for you, so.)
Nice dodge, though. So I take it you agree that you're putting words in people's mouths and making a strawman argument? It's good to accept things every once in a while... ;)
You'll have to wait a few months, for me at least. Current campaign started pre-Tasha's (and we are all humans).
How do you not understand how that's an insult? You've "met" these people, on these forums. You just think they're lying, and demand they show "proof" of their own opinions and preferences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Save yourself the effort, Ken. Dozens of people have tried to 'win' this argument. Nobody's ever made a dent. Nobody ever will. Some folks are just convinced that other folks need to be punished for their harmless game preferences and will never believe otherwise.
Frankly, I only posted above because there was an hour and a half break between when I started and when I clicked Submit because of work stuff and I didn't see that this thread had dipped into the whole "Tasha's Cauldron has RUINED D&D FOREVER!!!1!" nonsense again. I thought we were still talking about stats. Silly me.
Please do not contact or message me.
OMG what part aren't you getting of "I APPLY WHATEVER RACE TO WHAT EVER STATBLOCK" Just because I might use the "orc chieftain" stat-block doesn't mean its going to be an orc. If my party encounters an Orc, there is an even chance of it having 7 intelligence as it having 22. Premade Statblocks (for me) are just used as template. I don't care what "race" the statblock says it is, its going to be what ever my story requires at the time. Orcs will NOT have "an average of 7" and elves do NOT have an "average of 11" or whatever because I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE NAME OF THE STAT BLOCK.
Yes the BASE GAME's orc and elf NPC's have those averages which I do not agree with. But when you pulled my own DMing into question by asking "Well do you account for it for NPCs?" You stopped talking about the base game. So no I do not actively adjust stats to match because I just DON'T USE premade racial NPC stats as written. That "Drow Priestess" statblock has just as much chance of being a kuo-toa as it does a pure-blood orc, as it does an actual drow as it does a sentient tree with cleric spells. There is no "AVERAGE EXAMPLE" of a race in my campaigns, because race and stats have no alignments in my campaigns.
Yes I am absolutely telling you this because that player is me? I have 2 campaigns going with the same group of people, one I DM and one I play. The elf is in the one I DM and I would hardly say that the bonus "+1" to wisdom is "Min-maxed". I don't use DnD beyond for anything other than forums so I can't link a character sheet (especially for the elf cause its not my character)
But the high charisma fighter is DEFINITELY mine. His Abilities are:
STR: 15
DEX: 8
CON: 14
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 18
With Tasha's skill expert in persuasion for diplomacy.
He is certainly not min-maxed
His +2 to CHA affects his combat NONE
And I did it knowing that it would purposefully nerf my character because Boris has seen too much war and would rather talk things out.
No his strength isn't abysmal or anything, a lifetime of physical activity DOES have its perks, But I specifically wanted to play a character past his physical prime who still has something left to protect.
There's your proof.
I know, right?
Anyway, the system still works as intended even if people complain about it. Because the very thing that people complain about is what was intended with the system.
And some folks are convinced that other folks need to be punished for their concept that D&D is a set of rules, and should be challenging, and players don't need I-win buttons.
How is this an 'I win' button? Is a half elf paladin an I win button? Is an elf rogue an 'I win' button? How are the race/class combos that already have ASIs in their main stats not I win buttons/broken but it's suddenly broken if a half elf can get +2 DEX instead?
Racial ASI bonuses aren't what make the races unique. It's their other features that do. Having all races except humans and half elves be stuck with an unchanging ASI bonus is silly.
Honestly ASI's should have been tied to backgrounds. It makes way more sense.
At the end of the day Vince an extra +1 to weapon attacks and damage wont make the game that much easier, it just means that you hit a bit more and if its soo game breaking then give the enemy an extra dice or two when rolling for hp or add a small amount, that fixes the issue.
Also you can easily incorporate a TCoE change into a backstory or something important to your character, for instance, this Aasimar barbarian is reclusive and does not interact much with society, instead choosing to protect the village from some threats alone and before they get close enough to alert the village guards. They dont suit the Aasimar's +2 CHA, Tashas makes it so you can incorporate this big changes in characters easily. But its important to remember that these are optional rules, and it is perfectly valid if a DM allows their players to use these rules, they are not breaking D&D by doing so, just like its fine if you dont allow them at your table, just dont tell people they are "destroying D&D" by using these optional, alternative rules
"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
I for one do believe that playing a Half-Elf Paladin is indeed cheesy unless you have a compelling reason to play one. And yeah, one of my chars is indeed a Half-Elf Paladin, and I have to keep creating self-imposed limitations on that char because it is an I-win button. And that is where I am actually playing within the traditional rules of 5e.
I am also playing a Stout Halfling Scout Rogue, because it is a natural role for that species, and I am having a blast with that char.
I don't whine and say "It is not fair that my Halfling can't get a +2 to Cha so I can make him an awesome Hexblade". Now, if you say your Hafling Scout Rogue gets a +2 in Cha, because his background is Guild Merchant that sells the pottery for his Halfling enclave, that I might buy. But like Lyxen, am waiting for the day I see a player do that, strictly for the RP value.
All the +2 in a good stat ultimately means is that in roughly 1/20 rolls with that stat, you'll succeed at something where you otherwise would have failed. Hardly an 'i win button.'
It's an advantage, sure, and a tangible one, but hardly game breaking or over powered.
It's really not a game breaking advantage.
I have absolutely no clue how this is a issue with TCoE.
None of this is because of TCoE. Your players just have a different playstyle, that's perfectly fine. Some of our players do not.
I don't even get the whole "this is a powergamer's paradise" nonsense, ever since Tasha's has come up I haven't really seen a build that went from terrible to overpowered solely because of TCoE. Because moving a ASI around doesn't really change a whole lot of builds, it has made some people consider more weird builds like Dwarf Wizards, but those work basically about as great as they did pre-Tasha as they do post-Tashas.
Edit: I mean the racial customization options, I have seen some great builds using the TCoE subclasses but even then compared to the pre-existing overpowered builds they're at best equal or a bit better.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
So you are basically playing with the kind of character you complain about, but you can't accept that other people do the same thing? Just checking to see that I got it right.
I don't think TCoE is "a power gamer's paradise" at all. I think the system TCoE had is actually a great way to roleplay more. Example: A half-orc wizard with +2 to INT decided to focus on learning instead of becoming more strong, and that's how they are a good wizard.
The Circle of Hedgehogs Druid Beholder/Animated Armor Level -20 Bard of the OIADSB Cult, here are our rules. Sig. Also a sauce council member, but it's been dead for a while.
So half-elf paladins are cheesy, hn?
Half-elves - a people known in the lore of Faerun that we all know certain folks place tremendous importance and value on as beings caught between cultures and societies, often treated as wanderers or ambassadors because they never truly feel at peace with wherever they are - cannot ever conceivably find solace and 'home' in a sense of purpose beyond themselves, swearing an Oath upon the forces of the universe to uphold an ideal in the face of wickedness, oppression, and the sort of close-minded scorn and superstition that cast them out from their own homes?
Man. Rough break for half-elves.
Please do not contact or message me.
Half-elves with a class they're well-suited to are cheesy, except when you have a 'compelling' reason for the combo. Halflings with a class they're well-suited to is just a natural combination. I'm almost moved to ask for a list of all races and which classes are cheesy for them and which are natural and thus acceptable. Almost.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rolling for stats has always been broken, most ppl alternate to point buy or reroll if they get trash stats, so your often going with superior stats with a rolled character, sometimes with a glaring flaw, like a 4 in one stat.
The game is designed to handle some loaded stats, players often try to reach 18 or 20 by level 4 or 8 anyway, and technical features can be a lot more significant. As a DM currently running Hoard of the Dragon Queen, I can tell you, those stats are not enough to handle the brutal difficulty, and DMs exist to adjust difficulty for specifically these reasons.