An Analysis of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything: Optional Rules,

 Tasha's Cauldron of Everything starts off with a set of optional rules for customizing characters. These rules have drawn a lot of discussion on the internet, so I wanted to do a dedicated post just to address them For reference, we're talking about pages 7 and 8 under "Character Options" in TCoE.

As a quick summary, these rules give optional rules for:

• Adjust racial ability scores, languages, proficiencies, and personalities
• Making your own lineage (race)
• Changing skills and subclasses after the game has started

Okay, let's address the racial customizations and adjustments first, since this comes first in the text, and is, by far, the most talked about optional rule on the internet. This change adds some interesting dilemmas. In particular, once must assess whether all of the races are still balanced if you can move ability scores wherever you want them. Let's look at some specific extreme examples:

• Human: +1 to everything
• Variant Human: Two +1s and a feat
• Mountain Dwarf: +2, +2
• Satyr: +2, +1, Magic Resistance
• Kobold: +2, Pack Tactics, Sunlight Sensitivity

Obviously, I am leaving out a lot of detail. I am assuming you have the sources for reference and we can talk based on that. Let's boil it down to some equivalencies:

• Does + 1 to everything really equal two +1s and a feat between human and variant human?
• The core of this equivalence is that most classes are dependent on no more than 2 ability scores for their core features. Feats often contain a +1 ability score increase in them. This seems to hold since these races are in the PHB, and there hasn't been a lot of controvery over this particular equivalency.
• Note that feats are optional. Based on my own experience stacking feats breaks the CR system completely and can result in totally overpowered one-trick pony builds that make the game less fun. However, feats are a great way to customize characters and give them flavor. My compromise with feats is to organize them into 3 categories, offence, defence, and utility, and allow PCs to take no more than 1 feat in each category. This avoids feat stacking, but allows for customization.
• Does the +2, +2 Mountain Dwarf build have fewer other abilities to justify shoving these modifiers anywhere?
• The mountain dwarf gets only that +2, whereas the Hill Dwarf gets some HP. I think these two balance, since a +1 ability score can easily result in +1 hp per level.
• Let's compare against elves. Elves get a useful skill proficiency and something better in the advantage on saves. High elf gets really good proficiencies, probably as good or better than dwarf. Elves are common in play, so I think this shows balance.
• I have very seldom had a dwarf in my campaigns. This change will give it a slight boost, and I think that is suitable for this case.
• How about the Satyr magic resistance?
• I think the Satyr is pushing the limits. Magic resistance covers a lot of NPC abilities in the game. They get a bunch of other abilities. However, if you compare these to some of the other non-typical races, like Drow or Duegar, they are probably comparable. There are really two classes of races: normal races and monster races. Drow and duegar and satyr seem more like monster races.
• Is the kobold balanced? 
• +2 is good, pack tactics is situational for combat, so I think this balances. 
• However, sunlight sensitivity and other "negative traits" are often the bane of the DM. Inevitably, in the first session, there will be some move by the player to counter the negative like "I wear goggles" or "I wear a veiled cloak". If the DM allows these counters to the negative to stand, then the balance is broken. Players don't like negatives, and I think balancing a system around negatives is a bad idea.
• Do these changes break balance?
• I think the answer is probably no, at least in that there is no greater imbalance that there was before. Each DM should probably be assessing their own comfort level with balance for the style of game their running. For example, in one of my current games, it is strictly RAW and a very limited set of very balanced races. I even added race / class combo restrictions to fit the setting. That works in that game. In my other game, I have opened up the races to be basically anything, and that works in that game, because balance isn't really a big consideration.

The rules for making your own lineage / race, seem to be balanced with normal races (not monster races), although somewhat boring. They are balanced. I think if the DM allows them, they probably need to add some structure. My hope would be eventually we get a race builder section in a future supplement. That would be good, especially if they could release it with a summoner class that has a build-your-own eidolon feature. That might not fit, however, with the simplistic design of 5E. We'll see. i do like the Summon spells approach that I talked about in my last post.

Changing skills seems like a logical ruling. However, I think the GM needs to balance this by placing a limit on how often. I don't want a character customizing their skills every single time the story changes location and circumstance. Tying it to level up help some, but that may also be a point with milestone leveling when they know what the next location will be. I think this rule needs to be replaced by a higher level rule: don't force players to play characters they don't like.

Changing your subclass generates similar discussions from my perspective. However, I love that they include story-driven changes as a reason, and as a DM, I totally support that. If the story dictates a change that the player wants to make, I think that is a great reason and time to change.

In addition, I think they are missing a rule I add to my games. Every players has until the start of their third session to make character changes. This gives them a chance to adjust their character to the style of play of the group and DM. This lets players take risks in building their character that they might not normally take with an option to change it if it doesn't work out as expected. 

Here are my overall conclusions:

• These rules are fine and balanced because ultimately a +2 is very small compared to a d20.
• The DM still needs to choose whether to allow some of the traditional monster races in their games or not. Some of these monster races released are more powerful than the normal races.
• These rules will probably encourage a wider variety of races in play with a wider variety of classes, which makes the game more interesting for everyone.
• The rules for changing are good. Be careful how often you let a player change.
• Don't force a player to play a character they don't like. 
• Do what makes sense for the story. 

So how will I apply these to my games? In my game where I opened it up to all the races, I will allow the optional race rules. I will probably not allow the rules for changing things in my games at this time, but I will keep an eye out for allowing changes to be made when story drive or when the player is unhappy. These provide a framework for that.