Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Xanathar and Tasha Rules

Yeah, we are on the same page.

Feel free to corect me if im wrong, but arent you perfectly able to reach 17 Str in character creation? O_o
Maybe that is the reason ... since then it feels like "Elf trained their whole life, hence they are SINGLE point stronger than this Human who didnt trained a lot, just did basic stuff to keep himself more or less in shape, and added his racial modifier."

//edit:
Yup.

No.

Here i must admit that i dont play DnD since i dont have party, so feel free to corect me ... but as far as i know, 20 in any stat is cap ... not quite sure if that counts as it is, or before couting racial traits ...
Since if that is working as it is, just 20 and you are done ... you see that mechanical limitations are core of the problem in this debate ...
Since if there werent cap, or if that cap would not include racial traits ... any race that have +stat traits would be able to keep geting better and better in that stats, and no other race at same level would be able to reach their statistic ever.

Problem here isnt that Halfling at level 4 can reach the same Strength as Half-Orc at level 1 ...
Or that Halfling at level 8 can reach the same Strength as Half-Orc at level 4 ...

The problem starts to exists when Half-Orc reaches Strength 20, bcs since then no matter the training, no matter the experience, no matter anything ... he would never ever be stronger, and that is reason why you can use "logic" here ... then all Halfling nedd to do is simply reach him with his next ability score improvement. :-/

OH COME ON.

Roleplaying and wanting an effective character are not mutually exclusive. I'm not a non-roleplayer just because I'd like that +1 where my class needs it so I can ROLEPLAY being effective at my class.

Why is that so difficult to understand? I've been going on five pages trying to explain my position and reasons and you guys seem like you're actively refusing to acknowledge anything I say.

They are not mutually exclusive, but when you refuse to play a role because it is not minmaxed then you are not a roleplayer as, obviously, your concern is not the role but the power. Hence you are a powergamer.

Except I've never not played a role due to mechanical constraints and that is exactly WHY I like Tasha's rule.

My first DnD character was a half-orc druid. Second was a dwarf ranger with heinously poorly rolled stats. Quite frankly most of my characters are sub-optimal to the extreme because I play what I like even if it means being weaker.

But if I had Tasha's rule available I wouldn't have to make a choice between concept and effectiveness at all anymore. I'd be free to play the characters I really want to play AND still contribute to the party in a big, meaningful way.

Also this SHOULD go without saying but I'll say it anyway; the game's mechanics exist to facilitate roleplay. You can't roleplay something if the game's rules don't support that concept, which means if your concept is an orc wizard who is just as capable of wielding magic as a gnome peer you're simply out of luck. That is an impossible role to play. If you try to make that character he won't just be sub-optimal in another dimension from where the roleplay takes place. He'll be weaker within the story too, because the combat of the game are the action sequences of the story and if your stats don't reflect the level of competence you were going for it creatives a dissonance between gameplay and roleplay.

So no. Just because you want Tasha's rule does NOT mean you're only interested in powergaming or are somehow a power gamer. Real power gamers don't really care about Tasha's because they're already able to make brokenly OP characters without it. Tasha's rule just makes roleplay heavy characters closer in effectiveness than fully optimized characters.

You can RP as effectively at Str 15 as a Halfing, as you can at Str 16.

Fact, its simply a desire due to the mechanics of the game. Its min/max, nothing more.

And I dont say that as an insult. I optimize my Multiplayer games, I would never be less than 100% effective online in a competitive game. Minmax all the way.

In a SP RPG? I couldnt care less.

You are correct. I'm not sure what the people arguing with you aren't understanding.

I've been a 5th edition Dungeon Master for more than 5 years, and I've house-ruled the interchangeable ASIs for a couple years before it was made an official option in Tasha's (every other DM I know did as well). It's just a QoL improvement.

Floating ASI isn't about min-max at all. If you wanted the most powerful character possible without floating ASI, you could, it just limited your choices. Floating ASI is roleplay improvement because it frees you to play the race you wanted to RP without sacrificing functionality.

Please reread your last sentence. You are basically saying you want to roleplay what you want AND maximize your character.

Roleplay and power gaming is not mutually exclusive. It’s been repeated many times.

This is exactly a min/max argument. 100%

You do not want to RP, at the expense of being as effective as possible.

Its LITERALLY, about the mechanical benefit, aka minmax.

Let me put it even more clearly.

Fact 1: This game can be completed currently with only the PC. No Companions. 1 Character.
Fact 2: This game allows for 3 companions. 4 Characters.

You want to tell me that +1 is game breaking? That you NEED it?

Zero argument. No chance. You want it, for minmax optimization, nothing more.

Except multiple people have been arguing for why it is good for Roleplay. People don't need floating ASI to minmax at all, the minmax options exist completely without it and thats why you see people do the same race class combos. Many races are overlooked for character type because many players feel like they are missing out to their peers who picked the ideal Race Class combo. And we are not arguing for BG3 to be made easier or to make the most OP characters? And this was all a tangent, the initial topic was if we wanted things from the two books XGtE and TC, and we started to focus on one specific optional rule in Tasha's. BG3 is a videogame so it doesn't exactly have the same complications as a table and the game as it is right now can be beat without resting and by abusing non dnd mechanics. Min maxers wouldn't and don't care about ASIs with how much the system is exploitable right now to the point where a PC with -1 in everything could still come out on top cause barrels and lucky pushing.
But still having floating ASIs would only be a quality of life improvement for us. YES minmaxers can and will use it, but they never had to cause the best races still existed for them! But Tasha's frees that up so people do not feel penalized for playing something non ideal. Now I can actually in tabletop play that orc wizard who is just as smart as a gnome wizard because he spent his life studying, or I could play a drow cleric that is just as wise and physically strong as a human cleric. I can play the characters I want to play without mechanics and roleplaying having dissonance.
In BG3 this would just translate to people being able to have 16-17 on any race but thats fine even if they are minmaxing because it is a singleplayer/co-op game, and for the rest of us it just means we can have fun with our normally completely suboptimal concepts like a Dwarf Rogue or Orc/Half-Orc (when that drops) Wizard or Githyanki GOO Warlock which I would play purely because I want to play and roleplay that concept. Right now nothing actually stops me from playing these characters except Orc Wizard (which for in tabletop I stated my reasons well above cause I tried!) and so I play not optimal characters, heck on optimal characters I never get a 17 which would be the min max value, but with tasha's I can make my suboptimal choice and still contribute just as much as my fellow players AND have a complete match in mechanics and roleplay.

I've yet to see an argument where you simply MUST get that +3 to your main stat, for RP, while a +2 is just utterly unacceptable.

Orc Wizard
He was cloistered and very educated.
But mechanics gives him a 13, +1. Only average~above average. Him being really smart and scholarly is already failing.
Should be a competent wizard, but a +1 is very far behind a +3 so he seems to others to be very weak, especially cause he only ever missed.

So my roleplay as a Orc Wizard, someone who isn't brutish and is supposed to be quite smart and competent in his own right, got boiled down to me failing and people noting that I was just bad at being both an Orc and a Wizard. Mechanics and character concept could not match. A competent character should only miss a few times a session, but a combination of bad luck and low stats meant I failed every kind of check related to my PRIMARY stat.

DnD is a roleplaying game. You want both roleplaying and game, and both are connected. Without one the other does not stand as well. Yes too strong or too minmaxed of a character can break RP but so can too weak of a character. I was able to roleplay initially but the game part breaking down meant the RP broke down. On another character, an aasimar celestial warlock, I was able to roleplay very effectively as a healer because mechanically I had that and

TLDR; Because DnD is a roleplaying game, both halves are important and contribute to eachother. Tasha's makes it easier to have a balance.

Your orc was very smart and educated compared to 99% of all other orcs and even to common humans.
Again, your only complaint is that you want more power because the role is perfectly playable without Tasha's and offers its unique challenges and journey.
Just own it that you want to powergame instead of playing the role of an orc wizard.

It’ll go back and forth ad nausem.

Are people offended by being described as a power gamer? Is it because it’s referred negatively as munchkinism?

There’s nothing wrong with power gaming. You can roleplay and power game. It’s perfectly fine and I’d wager if we were all honest, the majority power game in their roleplay.

People seem to consider Critical Role as the pinnacle of roleplay (I see it as acting and theatrics) and it’s entertaining at times but if you look at their stats, yeah min maxed. And that’s okay.

Then I recommend you try it, it feels very draining to roleplay failing again and again and again for a few hours. I have had sessions where I died, and sessions where I was useless, but the Orc Wizard, once I got past introduction roleplay (which was fun and engaging) became very very very unfun when the game parts came up. If stats did not exist at all, he would have been beyond fun, I loved the concept and plan to return to it with Tasha's in effect, but with stats it was bad. There were obviously checks where a plus one or two would have done nothing, but there were a lot where it was clear that I was missing by one or two. So I really might as well have not been there. History check, you don't know. Nature, you don't know. Firebolt, miss. Bonfire, they passed the DC 11. That was the experience where the game mechanics and the roleplay concept no longer matched for me.

That you found it no fun is on you and maybe on your DM. And when you use Tasha you are not revisiting this concept, but are playing something very different (human or elf wizard, depending on how you exchange stats).
And by the way I currently play what in D&D would probably be translated as a Goliath or Half-Orc support bard with more of a ranged focus despite having a dex penalty. So you can save your "you try it".

Oh God dude, you are stepping into a quagmire of social agenda the likes you have ever seen lol. In today's environment, penalizing a character (even in a fantasy game) for racial choices is a big no no. Everyone has to be equal or else the world will explode 8P

Oh I know. I just don’t care. I don’t need to be validated by strangers or need their affirmation.