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.