So do you min max, because that 5% is unbearable, or do you RP and pick a race that does not get the exact benefit that is only about 5% better, that better fits what you want?
The beauty of Tasha's rules is that I don't have to make that choice. I can play the character I want to roleplay and still be mechanically viable so that I am not just worse at what I set out to do purely because I had a character concept I really loved.
For the record, look at my avatar. A Githyanki ranger. It is not optimized at all and I still play it. But, with Tasha's rules, I'd be able to move his +1 INT to WIS so I am not wasting an attribute on a dump stat.
Still have the same character I did before. He's just more competent at tracking, perception, and ranger spells. Which fits my character concept more because he's SUPPOSED to be competent. He's a dang Githyanki. Incompetent Githyanki don't survive to adulthood.
Originally Posted by Scribe
Do you want races to be more similar? Or less?
And what happens when some race provides no meaningful benefit to being a fighter, while Half-Orcs are over there with their purely racial benefits? Do we ask that they lose those, or do we turn them into feats so that all races have the same potential?
When does it simply become 'forget about different races'.
This is a Slippery Slope fallacy. Nobody here, nor Tasha's, is calling for the removal of racial abilities. Just racial ability scores. These are different things and people who are against racial ASIs are not automatically opposed to racial abilities in general.
It's only a fallacy if it isn't relevant, and it's very much relevant.
Originally Posted by FuryouMiko
At this point all I see is a bunch of people trying to tell me that in a world where some people are literally born better because of racial abilities and ASIs, there's no racism.
Well here's the big think boyo: fantasy races =/ human races.
Quite frankly it's extremely racist of you to say it's similar.
