Post Tasha's: Are you embracing the optional Character rules? Stats and skills

[Vos]

I'm referring to the +2 to one stat, and +1 to any other stat. No racial mandates.
Further, what are feeling about players picking their own skills - no longer limited to the class choices.

I like the rules, gives me the player a bit more freedom.

Are you for
Are you meh
Are you against it all...

I'm really trying to get a feel for a potential impact of new rules.

[LordEntrails]

Against. IMO its good for a DM to use to build new races. But I'm opposed because to me races have inherit advantages and disadvantages and ability modifiers are critical to that.

[damned]

is this because they want to avoid saying that any particular race is better at somethings than others?

[LordEntrails]

is this because they want to avoid saying that any particular race is better at somethings than others?
IMO:
Yes. It's an attempt to be culturally sensitive and to say that race doesn't matter. You can be anything you want to be regardless of what race you are born into. It's also why they have changed some of the terms, like race to heritage or something. Don't remember the details, never was important to me.

[spoofer]

Also against. I agree with their motivations behind the changes, but they went too far, and now race / heritage has no real meaning beyond flavour. For example, humans can optionally have dark vision. I feel that changes like that really water down the canonical knowledge that we bring to the table when we sit down to play.

My overall displeasure towards this and the power creep (example, Twilight cleric) has motivated me to look for opportunities to play games in other rule systems, such as Symbaroum, as well as 5E.

[charmov]

I like some stuff from Tasha's but am generally Against. To me, the new character creation rules suck a lot of flavor out. Many of the subclasses are too powerful.

This new spin on ttrpg's seems to want to introduce a modern sensibility into a setting that generally doesn't support such. Power structures in Fantasy settings are notoriously anti-enlightenment.

I'm all for enlightenment ideals in our world but when I'm trying to immerse myself in a Fantasy setting it seems weird to want to be super inclusive when the (imaginary) worlds populations operate on a principle of pure exclusivity. There aren't analogs between dnd races and people in our world, which is what Tasha's seems to think from my reading of it.

The Twilight cleric is way OP, IMO.

[The Decepticon]

I, too, am against this. It is probably because I am an old fuddy-duddy, but I really like the races to have their own special ability and the humans to have their variant. In my games, I do not include the new Tasha rule and stick to the other books for racial traits and abilities.

Dwarves should on average be stronger than elves and elves have a higher dexterity. Doesn't mean you can't have a very strong elf or a nimble dwarf, they just have to work a bit harder to do so.

[mdrichey]

For. Gone are the days of having to pick firbolg or githzerai just so you can start with +2 to Wisdom.

[Ecks]

For it. The goal of D&D is to have fun, and the optional rules for customizing your origin give players more options to play what they want. I don't think it takes away from the game at all.

[LordEntrails]

For those of you for it, then what's the difference between a dwarf and firblog if they can all start with the same stats and abilities etc?

I'm not opposed to making rulings to allow a character to play something atypical, but not just so that they can have dwarf with all the flavor of an elf. To me, there has to be meaningful choices in choosing one race over another.

[esmdev]

To be honest, I liked 2E when a race was a race and a class was a class, and you could pretty much tell who was who and what was what.

That being said, as I am running 5E at the moment, I already accept that the lines on classes are quite blurry. So I took a poll of my players about the new racial options and they mostly voted for using the options. I should note that despite it being available most of the players ended up sticking with the unmodified race. So it didn't really change much.

[Ragnar Tryggvy]

I am also against it. While I enjoy creativity with character creation and the game is to have fun, making a goblin the equivalent to a half-giant just seems to me to just be reducing character race to just another meaningless skin. It isn't about balance, it isn't about fun, it is about not being yelled at for being insensitive in an age of overly sensitive. If openly embraced, this will be the first step, possibly followed by deities being renamed 'Really Power Folk' so as not to offend the religious folks, which they have already made steps to avoid. But, I don't begrudge those that embrace it either. This is a game about having fun. If that is what makes it fun for you, embrace it. It just isn't what makes it fun for me. The racial dynamics are a part of all the fantasy movies and novels I have read and stripping that away just, to me, greatly waters down the fantasy aspect.

[damned]

For me, on one hand it is like saying cats are dogs are cats. That might be true for some but it makes no sense to me. On the other hand it does seem to just make everyone a little bit more powerful which may also appeal to some.

[GunnarGreybeard]

Don't use them and probably never will. Having started with rpgs when D&D was in it's infancy, one thing I always liked about the different races was the uniqueness of each. But then, I have always viewed races in rpgs more as different species rather than what would be considered races which is actually how some rpgs have always referenced them.

[LordEntrails]

Good point Gunnar. Species not ethnicities.

[Olmac1]

Against the player options, for the DM stuff. Don't mess with the races that have been canon since the beginning. I agree with is said, and elf is and elf and a dwarf is a dwarf. There is already enough diversity in them game. Like gunner said, species, not races. That was an awesome statement. The class options are a big power creep. Scrapped. Eberron already has the artificer, that is were it belongs. Doesn't belong in the game I run. I think the book is a 2 out of 5 only because the new DM stuff saved it. Personally I felt I paid too much for it, for what I am going to use.

[Ecks]

For those of you for it, then what's the difference between a dwarf and firblog if they can all start with the same stats and abilities etc?
It's worth noting that the optional rules for customizing your origin in TCoE covers changing Ability Score Increase, Language, Proficiency, and Personality. Other racial traits and abilities aren't changed - hill dwarves still have dwarven toughness, dragonborn still have a breath attack, etc. In terms of just ability scores, both Stout Halflings and Goblins get +2 Dexterity and +1 Constitution, does that mean there is no difference between the two?

The races as presented in the PHB make assumptions about culture and upbringing. What if your dwarf doesn't speak dwarvish or know how to use smith's tools? Still a dwarf. I would guess DMs would mostly already allow changing out languages and proficiencies prior to TCoE if they didn't fit the character a player had in mind, TCoE just gives rules to do that.

As for ASI, I don't think these are really core to playing any particular race. A dwarf is a dwarf because they're a dwarf, not because they have +2 constitution. Most dwarven adventures might be naturally tough, but that doesn't mean all have to adhere to that archetype. Plus, it just means players can play unique race/class combinations without having to sacrifice starting stats. Quite often I see players choose what race to play based only on ASI, now they don't have to.

In terms of mechanics, none of the origin customizations really impact game balance. Being able to start with a 16 in your primary stat regardless of race doesn't really change anything with regards to balance, so if it makes playing the game more fun for players then I'm all for it.

[Olmac1]

That's awesome, if you're any race but human. Stinks of PC. The book should have been called Tasha's Cauldron of Cancellation. Wizards is trying to cancel Dungeons and Dragons canon.

Sorry to say, but the the real world cancel culture is alive and well, even in my escapism game of Dungeons and Dragons.

[spoofer]

That's awesome, if you're any race but human.

Humans too! Humans now can have darkvision, because to anything else would be exclusionistic. We have to make sure that everyone can be anything, after all. You would not want your humans to be unable to see in the dark. That would not be fair at all.

[Zacchaeus]

OK, enough's enough. There's no such word as exclusionistic :)

[Marquis_de_Taigeis]

In my game i have offered the optional class features, and no one has needed to create a new character yet but the classes would be available if they needed to
i have not offered the optional race/heritage rules. but this is because if a player when creating the character before these rules existed could justify the reasoning for a change i would have probably have allowed it or found a way to meet halfway. so race/heritage modifying rules will always be for full discussion to make fit the world

in terms of dwarves i see the constitution bonus / poison resistance being from essentially growing a specially cultured beard that acts as a HEPA filter removing airborne poisons and dusts. if a dwarf hadnt grown up in mining caves but more of the city, they might have naturally only gained a +1 to con and a +1 elsewhere.

In the next campaign i run Elves will not be available as a player race, as they are banished to the fey lands due to cultural lore. (with the exception of a slightly modified drow) and half elf's are heavily shunned by the world for their link to full elves.

Vision is dependant on family tree in my games for what might be available, humans if they have a bit of another race somewhere back in the ancestry can roll a d% and possibly gain special vision properties, tieflings can try a d% roll and possibly gain devils sight, the d% roll for vision changes is super low between 2 & 5 % but it gives a chance

[Milmoor]

All in my humble opinion:
The things that make a dwarf a dwarf are not the stats. Carrot is a dwarf, though physically a human (Terry Pratchet). In the end, stats are but stats. Some are born strong/smart/etc. and some are not. PCs are not the average member of a race. I rather have a player choose a race because of the fluff than because of the stats. A civilized bugbear as a PC would cause me more issues in fitting in society than a +2 INT dwarf. The rules are but tools and abstractions. I do fear too much munchkinning though. In the end, I'll handle this case by case.



Vision is dependant on family tree in my games for what might be available, humans if they have a bit of another race somewhere back in the ancestry can roll a d% and possibly gain special vision properties, tieflings can try a d% roll and possibly gain devils sight, the d% roll for vision changes is super low between 2 & 5 % but it gives a chance
I personally don't like rolling for hitpoints, vision, etc. If two players make the same choices, they should end up with the same character. Some characters will be played for years. Things could turn out very unfair, and I prefer the PCs to be on equal footing with each other. But that's like liking cats or dogs, cats or trains, everyone has his/her own preferences.

[SoloJoke]

I agree with some of the changes, I was always against racial ability score bonuses ever since I first started playing, it just never made sense to me. Why is an orc who has never lifted a single weight or exercised once in his life got a bonus to strength? Why has the elf that grew up in the wilderness with not a single book around and no one else to talk to got a bonus to intelligence?

Sure I understand the idea that some species might have inherent capacity to be greater in a specifc attribute. Orcs might generally have a higher capacity for strength than a halfling, but that isn't the case, an orc and a halfling have the same capacity for strength, they are both capped at 20, it's just that the orc starts with a higher bonus. So it's like the worst of both worlds.

For a while, I just said everyone can add +2 to one ability score and +1 to another, and had done for years, but then about a year ago I remade the ability score bonuses for all the races in my world to increase the ability score *Cap* rather than have it be a bonus. So orcs don't start with a +2 to strength, they can just get to 22 strength instead. An elf doesn't start with higher dex, they can just get a total of 22. Humans get one static change depending on their region and then can choose the other stat they have their cap increased in. This seems fairly balanced to me so far because most classes generally have to give up a feat to get that 22.

[Maetco]

...but then about a year ago I remade the ability score bonuses for all the races in my world to increase the ability score *Cap* rather than have it be a bonus. So orcs don't start with a +2 to strength, they can just get to 22 strength instead. An elf doesn't start with higher dex, they can just get a total of 22. Humans get one static change depending on their region and then can choose the other stat they have their cap increased in. This seems fairly balanced to me so far because most classes generally have to give up a feat to get that 22.

This sounds interesting, I only see a potential balance issue with Humans but I need to think about it.

Generally I totally understand the issue Tasha is trying to alleviate. I have never liked the most common way PCs are built:
1. Choose a class
2. Create a build for level 10 - 20 (regardless of campaign, so even if the campaign is for levels 3 - 5)
3. Choose Race and Background which help creating the build
4. Create some real background and personality for the created bag of game mechanics

This is not a problem if RPG means dungeon grinding or D&D chess to you but for me it is a huge problem as to me the #1 thing about RPG is the first word "Roleplaying". So in my opinion the steps of creating a PC should be roughly:
1. Create the person you want to roleplay
2. Create the background for this person
3. Choose the game mechanical Race, Class, Background which are closest to what you already chose narratively for your PC

Freeing stuff like ASI from Race help in this but it also feels a bit wrong as D&D Races, which are real life language species, definitely affects the character's capabilities in the fictional world and it is in my opinion fun and interesting if this difference shows in the mechanics as well. D&D is just poor at implementing this. I haven't yet decided what I'm going to do with this kind of content in Tasha (maybe I will create my own solution like SoloJoke), but in my next campaign I definitely do want to support roleplay based character creation more than the basic rules do.

For the rest, I'm happy to give my players more options and don't see making the PCs stronger any problem at all. I am the GM, I can do *anything* to ramp up the challenge. Usually having more powerful and customized PC enhances the player experience, so I'm all for any changes that does just that.

[damned]

This sounds interesting, I only see a potential balance issue with Humans but I need to think about it.

Generally I totally understand the issue Tasha is trying to alleviate. I have never liked the most common way PCs are built:
1. Choose a class
2. Create a build for level 10 - 20 (regardless of campaign, so even if the campaign is for levels 3 - 5)
3. Choose Race and Background which help creating the build
4. Create some real background and personality for the created bag of game mechanics


Ive never created a character with levelling in mind.
My character has to survive the current level first.
My preference is in fact to play a character Ive had no hand in building.

[Olmac1]

Ive never created a character with levelling in mind.
My character has to survive the current level first.
My preference is in fact to play a character Ive had no hand in building.

This...

Before I build my character I think about who he/she/they/them are before the campaign starts. Then I build the character to fit that backstory. From then on, it is what has happened or happening to shape their life and guide the level ups. There is no road map.

Once I start leveling I look at it from my character's point of view. What worked, what didn't, and try to fix it with choosing archetypes, feats, ability increases.
I let the adventures and environment dictate how my character will progress. There is no end goal but to survive and be there for the big bad finale at the end of the campaign.

[SoloJoke]

There is a chance Humans may be unbalanced in some way, though, even if they are, it would only be a small advantage due to the fact that ASI's are still rather infrequent for most Classes, so it's not like the Cap increase is a bonus, it's just a new option for players. For example, if you are an Orc Wizard, you may not have the Intelligence cap increase that a human could have, but if the human spends his ASI to reach 22 in Int, then the Orc can get a feat with that same ASI, or boost another stat to be more rounded.

[NoHobo]

I enjoy these rules. As a DM using a homebrew world inspired by an existing video games lore (League) it really gives my players agency when it come to living out their fantasy. I never enjoyed having to choose an optimal race for particular classes, sometimes people just want to roleplay as a Bugbear Bard without being absolutely useless throughout an entire campaign. It also makes it easier for DM's to build balanced encounters since most players will be closer in strength rather than your "for fun" roleplay enthusiasts often being weaker.

[Garmorn]

I think that they are useful for a DM creating/running a home brew world. It helps with creating a world with a different feel to the races. How much a DM allows players to use them could well be based on the world setting.

A DM who uses them should be prepared to have some cultural differences at least at the concept level to explain any differences from the books if asked. They could also create some plot hooks for a really good DM.