To clarify, I don't think it's a problem. You can always bring everything to a comparable level, including the monsters. Up the DCs a bit, increase the monsters' numbers, give PCs with lower statlines more/better items or a homebrew ability or two. If it is problematic, and depending on the group it might not be, that's eminently solvable.
Rolling for stats sometimes produces really high scores. It also sometimes produces really low scores. Ideally both you and your DM are aware of both of those possibilities.
Tasha's doesn't really change this much since there's dozens of races with +2 to a score and +1 to another. Playing a human would raise your scores by 6 points in total.
I do not think that is broken. As others have said, the system is intended to be like that where sometimes you get high scores and sometimes you get low scores, and some tables like it that way. If you do not like the huge stat variation between party members, there is always point buy or some variations of that system.
This post has potentially manipulated dice roll results.
Let's set aside Tasha's rules on lineage and origins for the moment because they're largely irrelevant unless you're rolling your stats in order. The probability of getting at least one 18 when rolling for stats is 9.34%, which drops off to 0.34% for two. Basically, not impossible but not super common. So Tasha's hasn't really broken anything or changed the odds of having a 20 in your main stat at level one, it's just made it so you don't have to pick a certain race to do so.
As for having a 20 and a 17 at level, what makes that broken? Assuming your whole group is rolling for stats and using Tasha's rules, there's the same chance that they get high rolls as you. It's all fair and even coming out of the gate with a 20, that's not really going to affect much beyond your first ASI as you can't get past 20 without magic items or special abilities.
Let's actually see what happens when a party rolls for random stats:
There's a secret everybody seems to forget when it comes to these discussions of "rolled stats make for super-characters that just can't be challenged by mortal DMs! You just can't do it, it's broken!"
That secret is: 'god stats' don't give you better HP.
Even a really good Constitution score means you're within a few points of the typical HP on everything but a barbarian, and your heavy-armor cleric still has only ten hit points. He gets to prepare extra spells, his spells are extra punchy, and outside of combat he's good at peoplemancy - but one goblin stabbing him once is still a serious cause for concern at level 1. And that doesn't get better for several levels.
If a table's PCs all rolled and got Ubermensch stats, everybody bragging about how unbeatable they all are? Apply a global +2 to every attack roll enemies make. Remember - bounded accuracy can work for you as much as it does the party. People starting the game with 90+ arrays means the game can have its numbers punched up, and you're playing more of a Shadowrun/GURPS-style game where PC target numbers for their shit are mostly fixed instead of steadily rising as the game goes on. Just a different style.
Now, D&D is generally better when you gain power steadily as you level up - that's how the game was designed and what most of its systems support. It's why my table's moved away from rolled stats and high-power arrays in favor of a more flexible progression system. It's more fun, at least for us. But man. If a DM can't account for his players having an extra +1 or +2 in their modifiers in that DM's game math? He probably shouldn't be behind the screen.
If a DM can't account for his players having an extra +1 or +2 in their modifiers in that DM's game math? He probably shouldn't be behind the screen.
And if the DM "accounts" for it, what is the point of having it?
If the DM adds +1 to every monster's AC to offset the extra +1 the PCs have, then everything has effectively just come back down to baseline. The players "feel better" about having a "higher number" but they aren't having an easier time of hitting the goblins, so what did that extra +1 actually do? Or maybe the DM gave the monsters max instead of average rolls for HP, making that +2 damage effectively null and void relative to +0 against average hp. Or maybe the DM put you up against hobgoblins instead of goblins because the party had so many extra +1s/+2s that the goblins would have been too weak.
See here is the problem with the "arms race" of ever-increasing bonuses and higher stats: if the DM doesn't account for it, the characters are OP. If the DM does account for it, which I agree, the DM generally should, then the extra bonus is functionally erased and there was no point of having it in the first place.
This reminds me of the old argument I used to have with my best friend in Champions, who always wanted the characters to "be more powerful." By default, heroes started with 250 pts or less, but there was an option to start them at 325. He always lobbied for that option. What does that option do? Generally, let's you roll more dice. OK, that's fun. Rolling 12D6 for damage instead of 9D6, I get it, feels cool. However, to make the fights work out, I had to give the villains more defenses, higher to-hit and dodge abilities, etc. So it actually wasn't any more powerful, and it took exactly the same number of attacks to defeat the villain fought by a 325 pt character as a 250 pt character. You just rolled more dice each time you hit and it just took you a longer time to calculate damage.
There's no real right answer to this... I just find it amusing that people seem to think that the extra +1s and +2s are "so critical" to their build that they have to move them around to be optimal, and then complain if the game is too easy because the DM didn't know how to account for it. Or worse, complain that the game is just as hard because the DM *did* account for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The 'problem' isn't really Tashas the issue lies with rolling for stats, being able to pick the +2 and +1 isn't any different than just finding the race with the +2/+2 thats desirable in the stats you want (well actually tashas is weaker in that regard but basic concept)
Your gonna be hard pressed to find a table that rolls for stats without a ton of house rules about letting you reroll or rolling a few arrays and picking them or minimum stat amounts, and while this is perfectly fine in some regards it leads to inflated characters at lvl 1. RARELY are you gonna see a table that rolls 4d6 drop the lowest 6 times and just slaps in whatever they get and off they go.
Can be fine doesn't really mean its 'broken' but rolling will lead to stronger characters more often than weaker ones
There's a lot of reasons players might want to move their numbers around, Bio. Some of them, but not all of them, are invalidated by rolling for stats.
Some DMs insist that a character's mental stats are the sole determinant of their personality ("Low Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma? You're a caveman-speaking numbskull gronk/airheaded absent-minded lackwit/mouth-breathing creepazoid), and players lobby for higher stats in those games to avoid being locked out of options by idiot DMs that refuse to allow the players to dictate their character's actions rather than the numbers.
Some players find pleasure and satisfaction in assembling a neat piece of optimized kit, similarly in many respects to IRL neat freaks who believe everything has a place and must exist within that place. DMs who say "life is messy, your character sheet should be too" annoy the hell out of those players, and being able to shift numbers via Tasha's Cauldron is one way they can get back a little of the neatness they're looking for.
Some players want to be powerful knowing full well the DM will ramp the game up to meet that power - that's what they want. They want the game cranked up to Mann Mode, they want the DM to bust out the Black Book monsters no polite DM sics on their players, they want to know the DM is looking out for extra special ways to jack them over. They want to face that challenge and beat it, using the tools at their disposal to make the best weapons they can to take on a more merciless game.
And finally, some classes simply work better with a high number in their core stat. Wizards don't get to prepare all their spells - every point of Intelligence is another spell they can bring to their daily grind, and nobody plays a wizard to not have a plethora of unique and fantastical spells at their fingertips. Ditto the prepared casters that lose access to spells if their core stat isn't high enough, or the profusion of subclasses that gain uses of their special nifty subclass talents based on their [X] modifier. Doing things is more fun than not doing things, and higher numbers mean a great deal more Doing Things for some, but not all, classes.
And if the DM "accounts" for it, what is the point of having it?
What's the point of having what? High stats? Ultimately nothing, or at least it - IMO - shouldn't have a point. I don't know if that's even relevant though. More pertinent questions would be "why do we even use ability scores?" and "why do we generate them the way we do?"
To the former, presumably, so there's variance in abilities and not everyone is equally good at everything (both compared to others and comparing one skill or task to another). To the latter, that obviously depends on the method used - when rolling, it's because of randomness; with point buy or a fixed array it's because of giving players more control and/or comparably equal(ish) statlines.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The point of having higher stats is very similar to the point of advancing a level.
What is the point in advancing a level when your challenges increase in CR as well?
To fight cooler, more powerful monsters :D
If I were to play my dream paladin with powerful stats (provided the rest of the party was also powerful), I would not expect my DM to account for those stats by giving a goblin extra HP or AC. I would want them to account for it by enabling me to fight more powerful devils and demons and undead faster in my career.
But since I don't play, I do this exact thing for my players who are way above average in their strength for their level. So at 7 they regularly fight CR 10+ and there is only two of them.
Tasha's can make characters a little more powerful, for example the ability to fly is incredibly powerful at low levels. Without Tasha's to play a winged tiefling you get a bonus to charisma and Int, if you are a charisma caster you will benefit from the +2 but get little benefit from the +1. With Tasha's you can put the +1 into Con or Dex, or be a rogue and put the bonuses in Dex and con.
This flexibility means that the whole party can be winged tieflings and aarakokra and be a alanced mix of classes someone that would be much more difficult without the Tasha's option.
What is the point in advancing a level when your challenges increase in CR as well?
To fight cooler, more powerful monsters :D
If I were to play my dream paladin with powerful stats (provided the rest of the party was also powerful), I would not expect my DM to account for those stats by giving a goblin extra HP or AC. I would want them to account for it by enabling me to fight more powerful devils and demons and undead faster in my career.
It's not hard to make an existing monster a bit cooler without changing the power level or to tone down a very cool one that'd otherwise be a bit much for the party either. Making a monster interesting is more about esthetics than power (though special abilities don't hurt).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How is this character broken? Sure, it has a couple of really high stats (remember that mountain dwarves can get two abilities at 20 if you roll well enough) but als a few mediocre ones. It might be better than other PCs for a few levels but I really don't see how it is broken. Nor what it has to do with Tasha's.
You might also want to check with you DM if approve of these stats or if they want you to reroll when they can oversee it. Or maybe they only allow SPA/point buy, I don't know. Either way, I don't think this character, on its own, is broken or OP.
If a DM can't account for his players having an extra +1 or +2 in their modifiers in that DM's game math? He probably shouldn't be behind the screen.
And if the DM "accounts" for it, what is the point of having it?
If the DM adds +1 to every monster's AC to offset the extra +1 the PCs have, then everything has effectively just come back down to baseline. The players "feel better" about having a "higher number" but they aren't having an easier time of hitting the goblins, so what did that extra +1 actually do? Or maybe the DM gave the monsters max instead of average rolls for HP, making that +2 damage effectively null and void relative to +0 against average hp. Or maybe the DM put you up against hobgoblins instead of goblins because the party had so many extra +1s/+2s that the goblins would have been too weak.
See here is the problem with the "arms race" of ever-increasing bonuses and higher stats: if the DM doesn't account for it, the characters are OP. If the DM does account for it, which I agree, the DM generally should, then the extra bonus is functionally erased and there was no point of having it in the first place.
This reminds me of the old argument I used to have with my best friend in Champions, who always wanted the characters to "be more powerful." By default, heroes started with 250 pts or less, but there was an option to start them at 325. He always lobbied for that option. What does that option do? Generally, let's you roll more dice. OK, that's fun. Rolling 12D6 for damage instead of 9D6, I get it, feels cool. However, to make the fights work out, I had to give the villains more defenses, higher to-hit and dodge abilities, etc. So it actually wasn't any more powerful, and it took exactly the same number of attacks to defeat the villain fought by a 325 pt character as a 250 pt character. You just rolled more dice each time you hit and it just took you a longer time to calculate damage.
There's no real right answer to this... I just find it amusing that people seem to think that the extra +1s and +2s are "so critical" to their build that they have to move them around to be optimal, and then complain if the game is too easy because the DM didn't know how to account for it. Or worse, complain that the game is just as hard because the DM *did* account for it.
Let's not forget "account" is also synonymous for story (which is important for folks who think columns of numbers aren't story telling instruments, but that's a digression beyond game playing). The DM always needs to account for the PCs if the game is to sustain the table's interest. The DMG gives some broad instructions for suitable challenge engagement, but once comfortable with the system the DM should present games of a sort where the sort of story being made is (trigger warning some sensibilities may not like the source of this gag quote) "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
My take on optimizing builds etc. Characters should be built according to what they want to play. If the DM and players have a certain style of play they want to attain, point buy isn the way to go. I, and fortunately so far the players who stick with me, prefer to build characters through rolling and see what we have and take the game from there.
What is the point in advancing a level when your challenges increase in CR as well?
To fight cooler, more powerful monsters :D
If I were to play my dream paladin with powerful stats (provided the rest of the party was also powerful), I would not expect my DM to account for those stats by giving a goblin extra HP or AC. I would want them to account for it by enabling me to fight more powerful devils and demons and undead faster in my career.
It's not hard to make an existing monster a bit cooler without changing the power level or to tone down a very cool one that'd otherwise be a bit much for the party either. Making a monster interesting is more about esthetics than power (though special abilities don't hurt).
Kind of agree but also while power does not make the monster automatically interesting, the monster being interesting isn't the only thing players are after. They are after glory and conquest and power and might of a monster is also tied to its mythos and aura of cooleness. If a lower level party can spank a Pit Fiend because the DM toned it down so it wouldn't be too much for the players, on some level it kind of cheapens the experience. You can't really avoid thinking that the DM gave that monster on a silver platter and if a mid level party can handle it then it loses much of its terrifying aura.
Doesn't really feel satisfying when you say that you have slain one of the most powerful devils in regular hierarchy of Nine Hells "but it had 2 lower AC, 20% less HP and dealt one dice less for damage on all of its attacks".
Functionally weakening a monster so it can be fought by lower leveled character is almost identical to boosting the player so it can fight the monster in it's unnerfed state but optics of the two are vastly different.
What is the point in advancing a level when your challenges increase in CR as well?
To fight cooler, more powerful monsters :D
If I were to play my dream paladin with powerful stats (provided the rest of the party was also powerful), I would not expect my DM to account for those stats by giving a goblin extra HP or AC. I would want them to account for it by enabling me to fight more powerful devils and demons and undead faster in my career.
It's not hard to make an existing monster a bit cooler without changing the power level or to tone down a very cool one that'd otherwise be a bit much for the party either. Making a monster interesting is more about esthetics than power (though special abilities don't hurt).
Kind of agree but also while power does not make the monster automatically interesting, the monster being interesting isn't the only thing players are after. They are after glory and conquest and power and might of a monster is also tied to its mythos and aura of cooleness. If a lower level party can spank a Pit Fiend because the DM toned it down so it wouldn't be too much for the players, on some level it kind of cheapens the experience. You can't really avoid thinking that the DM gave that monster on a silver platter and if a mid level party can handle it then it loses much of its terrifying aura.
Doesn't really feel satisfying when you say that you have slain one of the most powerful devils in regular hierarchy of Nine Hells "but it had 2 lower AC, 20% less HP and dealt one dice less for damage on all of its attacks".
Functionally weakening a monster so it can be fought by lower leveled character is almost identical to boosting the player so it can fight the monster in it's unnerfed state but optics of the two are vastly different.
A lot of the monsters I use are reskinned - similar stats to an official one, different looks, different name. A lot of others are humanoids with special abilities. What exactly indicates "silver platter"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What is the point in advancing a level when your challenges increase in CR as well?
To fight cooler, more powerful monsters :D
If I were to play my dream paladin with powerful stats (provided the rest of the party was also powerful), I would not expect my DM to account for those stats by giving a goblin extra HP or AC. I would want them to account for it by enabling me to fight more powerful devils and demons and undead faster in my career.
It's not hard to make an existing monster a bit cooler without changing the power level or to tone down a very cool one that'd otherwise be a bit much for the party either. Making a monster interesting is more about esthetics than power (though special abilities don't hurt).
Kind of agree but also while power does not make the monster automatically interesting, the monster being interesting isn't the only thing players are after. They are after glory and conquest and power and might of a monster is also tied to its mythos and aura of cooleness. If a lower level party can spank a Pit Fiend because the DM toned it down so it wouldn't be too much for the players, on some level it kind of cheapens the experience. You can't really avoid thinking that the DM gave that monster on a silver platter and if a mid level party can handle it then it loses much of its terrifying aura.
Doesn't really feel satisfying when you say that you have slain one of the most powerful devils in regular hierarchy of Nine Hells "but it had 2 lower AC, 20% less HP and dealt one dice less for damage on all of its attacks".
Functionally weakening a monster so it can be fought by lower leveled character is almost identical to boosting the player so it can fight the monster in it's unnerfed state but optics of the two are vastly different.
A lot of the monsters I use are reskinned - similar stats to an official one, different looks, different name. A lot of others are humanoids with special abilities. What exactly indicates "silver platter"?
I'm not saying that you are giving the monsters on a silver platter if this is what you are referring to.
What I meant is reserved mostly for high CR iconic monsters - some of them are interesting (and some are simple brutes) but most of them have this aura of danger around them which disappears if one gives it to players with several handicaps. It does not disappear if those handicaps are in the form boosting the players either by allowing them higher stats, extra feat, rerolling 1's when HP is rolled or giving magic items.
When you homebrew you can basically do whatever you want and unless you described a huge hulking terrifying beast that gets spanked because it had stats of some CR 3 monster then everything is fine :D
Essentially I don't disagree with you when it comes to the coolness factor and aesthetics but I also think that monsters power level has a lot to do with players wanting to fight it. I mean, Tarrasque is a simple brute but many would want to fight it at some point, if only for the sake of telling the future generations that they are the heroes that felled down the legendary beast. Who cares that it was so much less interesting than a fight with a Lich?
Hi,
Rolling for my ability scores and using Tasha’s has led me to have an utterly broken character.
I used DDB’s ability to roll for your ability scores, and I used Tasha’s to customise where my characters racial modifiers went.
With the two combined, I was able to make this character: https://ddb.ac/characters/49080996/vDMMX1
I quite literally have a level one character who has a 20 in one ability and an 18 in another, and even the rest of the scores are high.
It seems very broken that a level 1 character could end up with ability scores like that.
What do you think?
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.
To clarify, I don't think it's a problem. You can always bring everything to a comparable level, including the monsters. Up the DCs a bit, increase the monsters' numbers, give PCs with lower statlines more/better items or a homebrew ability or two. If it is problematic, and depending on the group it might not be, that's eminently solvable.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Rolling for stats sometimes produces really high scores. It also sometimes produces really low scores. Ideally both you and your DM are aware of both of those possibilities.
Tasha's doesn't really change this much since there's dozens of races with +2 to a score and +1 to another. Playing a human would raise your scores by 6 points in total.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I do not think that is broken. As others have said, the system is intended to be like that where sometimes you get high scores and sometimes you get low scores, and some tables like it that way. If you do not like the huge stat variation between party members, there is always point buy or some variations of that system.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
It's not a bug. It's a feature.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Let's set aside Tasha's rules on lineage and origins for the moment because they're largely irrelevant unless you're rolling your stats in order. The probability of getting at least one 18 when rolling for stats is 9.34%, which drops off to 0.34% for two. Basically, not impossible but not super common. So Tasha's hasn't really broken anything or changed the odds of having a 20 in your main stat at level one, it's just made it so you don't have to pick a certain race to do so.
As for having a 20 and a 17 at level, what makes that broken? Assuming your whole group is rolling for stats and using Tasha's rules, there's the same chance that they get high rolls as you. It's all fair and even coming out of the gate with a 20, that's not really going to affect much beyond your first ASI as you can't get past 20 without magic items or special abilities.
Let's actually see what happens when a party rolls for random stats:
Alex: Ability scores: 12 16 14 9 15 16
Beth: Ability scores: 17 11 16 8 13 7
Charlie: Ability scores: 14 7 13 10 15 16
Desi: Ability scores: 12 18 15 15 10 13
Elliot: Ability scores: 14 12 15 9 8 8
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
There's a secret everybody seems to forget when it comes to these discussions of "rolled stats make for super-characters that just can't be challenged by mortal DMs! You just can't do it, it's broken!"
That secret is: 'god stats' don't give you better HP.
Even a really good Constitution score means you're within a few points of the typical HP on everything but a barbarian, and your heavy-armor cleric still has only ten hit points. He gets to prepare extra spells, his spells are extra punchy, and outside of combat he's good at peoplemancy - but one goblin stabbing him once is still a serious cause for concern at level 1. And that doesn't get better for several levels.
If a table's PCs all rolled and got Ubermensch stats, everybody bragging about how unbeatable they all are? Apply a global +2 to every attack roll enemies make. Remember - bounded accuracy can work for you as much as it does the party. People starting the game with 90+ arrays means the game can have its numbers punched up, and you're playing more of a Shadowrun/GURPS-style game where PC target numbers for their shit are mostly fixed instead of steadily rising as the game goes on. Just a different style.
Now, D&D is generally better when you gain power steadily as you level up - that's how the game was designed and what most of its systems support. It's why my table's moved away from rolled stats and high-power arrays in favor of a more flexible progression system. It's more fun, at least for us. But man. If a DM can't account for his players having an extra +1 or +2 in their modifiers in that DM's game math? He probably shouldn't be behind the screen.
Please do not contact or message me.
And if the DM "accounts" for it, what is the point of having it?
If the DM adds +1 to every monster's AC to offset the extra +1 the PCs have, then everything has effectively just come back down to baseline. The players "feel better" about having a "higher number" but they aren't having an easier time of hitting the goblins, so what did that extra +1 actually do? Or maybe the DM gave the monsters max instead of average rolls for HP, making that +2 damage effectively null and void relative to +0 against average hp. Or maybe the DM put you up against hobgoblins instead of goblins because the party had so many extra +1s/+2s that the goblins would have been too weak.
See here is the problem with the "arms race" of ever-increasing bonuses and higher stats: if the DM doesn't account for it, the characters are OP. If the DM does account for it, which I agree, the DM generally should, then the extra bonus is functionally erased and there was no point of having it in the first place.
This reminds me of the old argument I used to have with my best friend in Champions, who always wanted the characters to "be more powerful." By default, heroes started with 250 pts or less, but there was an option to start them at 325. He always lobbied for that option. What does that option do? Generally, let's you roll more dice. OK, that's fun. Rolling 12D6 for damage instead of 9D6, I get it, feels cool. However, to make the fights work out, I had to give the villains more defenses, higher to-hit and dodge abilities, etc. So it actually wasn't any more powerful, and it took exactly the same number of attacks to defeat the villain fought by a 325 pt character as a 250 pt character. You just rolled more dice each time you hit and it just took you a longer time to calculate damage.
There's no real right answer to this... I just find it amusing that people seem to think that the extra +1s and +2s are "so critical" to their build that they have to move them around to be optimal, and then complain if the game is too easy because the DM didn't know how to account for it. Or worse, complain that the game is just as hard because the DM *did* account for it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
The 'problem' isn't really Tashas the issue lies with rolling for stats, being able to pick the +2 and +1 isn't any different than just finding the race with the +2/+2 thats desirable in the stats you want (well actually tashas is weaker in that regard but basic concept)
Your gonna be hard pressed to find a table that rolls for stats without a ton of house rules about letting you reroll or rolling a few arrays and picking them or minimum stat amounts, and while this is perfectly fine in some regards it leads to inflated characters at lvl 1. RARELY are you gonna see a table that rolls 4d6 drop the lowest 6 times and just slaps in whatever they get and off they go.
Can be fine doesn't really mean its 'broken' but rolling will lead to stronger characters more often than weaker ones
There's a lot of reasons players might want to move their numbers around, Bio. Some of them, but not all of them, are invalidated by rolling for stats.
Some DMs insist that a character's mental stats are the sole determinant of their personality ("Low Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma? You're a caveman-speaking numbskull gronk/airheaded absent-minded lackwit/mouth-breathing creepazoid), and players lobby for higher stats in those games to avoid being locked out of options by idiot DMs that refuse to allow the players to dictate their character's actions rather than the numbers.
Some players find pleasure and satisfaction in assembling a neat piece of optimized kit, similarly in many respects to IRL neat freaks who believe everything has a place and must exist within that place. DMs who say "life is messy, your character sheet should be too" annoy the hell out of those players, and being able to shift numbers via Tasha's Cauldron is one way they can get back a little of the neatness they're looking for.
Some players want to be powerful knowing full well the DM will ramp the game up to meet that power - that's what they want. They want the game cranked up to Mann Mode, they want the DM to bust out the Black Book monsters no polite DM sics on their players, they want to know the DM is looking out for extra special ways to jack them over. They want to face that challenge and beat it, using the tools at their disposal to make the best weapons they can to take on a more merciless game.
And finally, some classes simply work better with a high number in their core stat. Wizards don't get to prepare all their spells - every point of Intelligence is another spell they can bring to their daily grind, and nobody plays a wizard to not have a plethora of unique and fantastical spells at their fingertips. Ditto the prepared casters that lose access to spells if their core stat isn't high enough, or the profusion of subclasses that gain uses of their special nifty subclass talents based on their [X] modifier. Doing things is more fun than not doing things, and higher numbers mean a great deal more Doing Things for some, but not all, classes.
Please do not contact or message me.
What's the point of having what? High stats? Ultimately nothing, or at least it - IMO - shouldn't have a point. I don't know if that's even relevant though. More pertinent questions would be "why do we even use ability scores?" and "why do we generate them the way we do?"
To the former, presumably, so there's variance in abilities and not everyone is equally good at everything (both compared to others and comparing one skill or task to another). To the latter, that obviously depends on the method used - when rolling, it's because of randomness; with point buy or a fixed array it's because of giving players more control and/or comparably equal(ish) statlines.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"I rolled really high stats."
*thinks*
"It must be Tasha's fault!"
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
The point of having higher stats is very similar to the point of advancing a level.
What is the point in advancing a level when your challenges increase in CR as well?
To fight cooler, more powerful monsters :D
If I were to play my dream paladin with powerful stats (provided the rest of the party was also powerful), I would not expect my DM to account for those stats by giving a goblin extra HP or AC. I would want them to account for it by enabling me to fight more powerful devils and demons and undead faster in my career.
But since I don't play, I do this exact thing for my players who are way above average in their strength for their level. So at 7 they regularly fight CR 10+ and there is only two of them.
Tasha's can make characters a little more powerful, for example the ability to fly is incredibly powerful at low levels. Without Tasha's to play a winged tiefling you get a bonus to charisma and Int, if you are a charisma caster you will benefit from the +2 but get little benefit from the +1. With Tasha's you can put the +1 into Con or Dex, or be a rogue and put the bonuses in Dex and con.
This flexibility means that the whole party can be winged tieflings and aarakokra and be a alanced mix of classes someone that would be much more difficult without the Tasha's option.
It's not hard to make an existing monster a bit cooler without changing the power level or to tone down a very cool one that'd otherwise be a bit much for the party either. Making a monster interesting is more about esthetics than power (though special abilities don't hurt).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
How is this character broken? Sure, it has a couple of really high stats (remember that mountain dwarves can get two abilities at 20 if you roll well enough) but als a few mediocre ones. It might be better than other PCs for a few levels but I really don't see how it is broken. Nor what it has to do with Tasha's.
You might also want to check with you DM if approve of these stats or if they want you to reroll when they can oversee it. Or maybe they only allow SPA/point buy, I don't know. Either way, I don't think this character, on its own, is broken or OP.
Let's not forget "account" is also synonymous for story (which is important for folks who think columns of numbers aren't story telling instruments, but that's a digression beyond game playing). The DM always needs to account for the PCs if the game is to sustain the table's interest. The DMG gives some broad instructions for suitable challenge engagement, but once comfortable with the system the DM should present games of a sort where the sort of story being made is (trigger warning some sensibilities may not like the source of this gag quote) "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
My take on optimizing builds etc. Characters should be built according to what they want to play. If the DM and players have a certain style of play they want to attain, point buy isn the way to go. I, and fortunately so far the players who stick with me, prefer to build characters through rolling and see what we have and take the game from there.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Kind of agree but also while power does not make the monster automatically interesting, the monster being interesting isn't the only thing players are after. They are after glory and conquest and power and might of a monster is also tied to its mythos and aura of cooleness. If a lower level party can spank a Pit Fiend because the DM toned it down so it wouldn't be too much for the players, on some level it kind of cheapens the experience. You can't really avoid thinking that the DM gave that monster on a silver platter and if a mid level party can handle it then it loses much of its terrifying aura.
Doesn't really feel satisfying when you say that you have slain one of the most powerful devils in regular hierarchy of Nine Hells "but it had 2 lower AC, 20% less HP and dealt one dice less for damage on all of its attacks".
Functionally weakening a monster so it can be fought by lower leveled character is almost identical to boosting the player so it can fight the monster in it's unnerfed state but optics of the two are vastly different.
A lot of the monsters I use are reskinned - similar stats to an official one, different looks, different name. A lot of others are humanoids with special abilities. What exactly indicates "silver platter"?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not saying that you are giving the monsters on a silver platter if this is what you are referring to.
What I meant is reserved mostly for high CR iconic monsters - some of them are interesting (and some are simple brutes) but most of them have this aura of danger around them which disappears if one gives it to players with several handicaps. It does not disappear if those handicaps are in the form boosting the players either by allowing them higher stats, extra feat, rerolling 1's when HP is rolled or giving magic items.
When you homebrew you can basically do whatever you want and unless you described a huge hulking terrifying beast that gets spanked because it had stats of some CR 3 monster then everything is fine :D
Essentially I don't disagree with you when it comes to the coolness factor and aesthetics but I also think that monsters power level has a lot to do with players wanting to fight it. I mean, Tarrasque is a simple brute but many would want to fight it at some point, if only for the sake of telling the future generations that they are the heroes that felled down the legendary beast. Who cares that it was so much less interesting than a fight with a Lich?