D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Helldritch]

Have we really reached this stage?

Both yes and no. But my point falls on deaf ears. We'll see where it will go in a few years...

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, of course you can. But then it is like shooting in your own foot, when before it was an interesting choice.
As I see it, it opens up choices and likewise closes an equal amount of (sensible) choices.
Within a point buy system, I do see advantages, because not all increases are worth the same. And when I do create characters for fun in dndbeyond, yes, I look at stat increases and the new rule option will help me build "legal" characters.

In our game where we roll for stats anyway, a +2 to a low stat might be as good as an increase to a top stat and it does not feel "wasted". And stat increases do belong into a 1system where you roll for stats anyway. For point buy there are more elegant ways to handle it (lowered/increased costs for certain increases).

But the common thing around which change happens is ‘dwarf.’

if there is no dwarf, there is no point in asking ‘whaddya mean?’ Because nothing is surprising at some point.

If it’s not a weird combo, it’s just this skin and this class, ‘oh well.’ You can pair any class and any skin without repercussions.

but it’s true, the game changes and part of the reason it is exciting is because of some basis in shared lore.

edited for autocorrected nonsense!

I don’t think anyone wants to lose the tropes and narratives around the various races; I think there is simply disagreement as to whether or not stat adjustments are a necessary tool to provide and support that narrative.

I think there is also a related argument as to whether being better or worse options for various classes is also a tool for giving racial tropes weight. Is being worse at wizardry a useful tool for defining the identity of dwarvishness?

And underlying all that is the ever present argument of how much weight D&D should give to supporting archetypes in its rules versus giving players the freedom to design characters however they see fit. The game has moved over the decades towards more player freedom, but how much further it can move in that direction without losing some essential D&Dness is a difficult question to answer.

 

[Maxperson]

"non-demi-god"? I hate to break it to you, but Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Show me a 5th level Magic User who can cast multiple lightning bolts in a single fight and take out a Balor all by himself.

 

[Alzrius]

Show me a 5th level Magic User who can cast multiple lightning bolts in a single fight and take out a Balor all by himself.

Well, then we get into the argument about how a "balrog" became bastardized over successive editions to become the top-of-the-heap "balor" demons, and it all goes downhill from there.

Personally, so long as we can say that the giant eagles ruin everything, I'm happy.

 

[Oofta]

Show me a 5th level Magic User who can cast multiple lightning bolts in a single fight and take out a Balor all by himself.

When did he cast multiple lightning bolts in a single fight? He used a flash-bang to scare away some goblins in The Hobbit but in Minas Tirith it was always "Any moment now I'm going to open that can of whoop-ass. It's a really big can so watch out. Any moment now ... yessiree ... big ol' can."

Asking for a friend because obviously I have every Tolkien book committed to memory.

P.S. Gandalf wasn't even a level 5 wizard, he was a charlatan and bureaucrat that took credit for everything while convincing others to risk their lives.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I don’t think anyone wants to lose the tropes and narratives around the various races; I think there is simply disagreement as to whether or not stat adjustments are a necessary tool to provide and support that narrative.

I think there is also a related argument as to whether being better or worse options for various classes is also a tool for giving racial tropes weight. Is being worse at wizardry a useful tool for defining the identity of dwarvishness?

And underlying all that is the ever present argument of how much weight D&D should give to supporting archetypes in its rules versus giving players the freedom to design characters however they see fit. The game has moved over the decades towards more player freedom, but how much further it can move in that direction without losing some essential D&Dness is a difficult question to answer.

Your point is well taken. But in a game with classes and species (races) creativity often come from coloring outside the lines. But this implies there are lines and some constraints in my opinion.

the game will survive even if 6e ends up floundering like 4e did.

I just don’t like this direction others do. We will see how it gets received

 

[TwoSix]

Your point is well taken. But in a game with classes and species (races) creativity often come from coloring outside the lines. But this implies there are lines and some constraints in my opinion.

the game will survive even if 6e ends up floundering like 4e did.

I just don’t like this direction others do. We will see how it gets received

I don't think too many people want the erasure of all lines; I think there is simply valid disagreement as to where to draw the lines.

I mean, there was plenty of acrimony when they got rid of racial restrictions and level limits in the 2e->3e transition, people got over it. Those that didn't probably helped kickstart the OSR.

 

[Maxperson]

When did he cast multiple lightning bolts in a single fight? He used a flash-bang to scare away some goblins in The Hobbit but in Minas Tirith it was always "Any moment now I'm going to open that can of whoop-ass. It's a really big can so watch out. Any moment now ... yessiree ... big ol' can."

Asking for a friend because obviously I have every Tolkien book committed to memory.

P.S. Gandalf wasn't even a level 5 wizard, he was a charlatan and bureaucrat that took credit for everything while convincing others to risk their lives.

In the Hobbit he killed goblins with light that flashed and left the smell of ozone. Lightning bolts.

So he was at least 6th-7th level in what he showed, and what he showed was just a fraction of what he was capable of, since he was voluntarily holding most of his power back to the subdued 6th-7th level.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If you're arguing that I can have dexterous elves by giving them dex abilities with my DM powers and that giving them said powers should be sufficient, then all DMs from the beginning of 5e already possessed the DM powers to make elves who were not more dexterous on average, and that ability was sufficient, so Tasha's didn't need to codify it.

Uh... yeah! That's exactly it! Now you've got it!

None of us needed Tasha's to be published to change out racial bonus stats if we wanted them. We could have done it or not done all this time. Which is exactly why Tasha's being published doesn't matter.

The same way I could have removed the elf's +2 to DEX while all we had was the PHB is the same reason you can keep the elf's +2 to DEX even when Tasha's comes out.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't think it goes against the logic of the DM and players being equal at all.

If I, as a player, came to the DM and told them that a current scene we were going through made me uncomfortable and was ruining my enjoyment of the game, I would expect them to take it seriously and hopefully work to address the problem.

If a DM came to us as players, and told us that these rules for changing racial ability modifiers made them uncomfortable, and ruined the fun of running the game for them, then I would try and treat that with the same respect.

The issue I tend to have is that the people claiming they will "never allow something at their table" seem to be more concerned with aspects that I don't feel would actually ruin running the game for them. A lot of times it is more of a "I don't like it and I think it is stupid" and less of an impact on their ability to run the game.

Especially in this case when the effect is so far in the background of the game. I don't tend to bat an eye at a certain race being good at certain things. I've seen halflings with 12 or 14 strength attempting and succeeding feat of strength. It happens. It would be more strange to me to see a wizard do it, but even then, it is simply odd, not bad. We did have a guy who rolled an amazing stat array and had a wizard whose lowest stat was his 14 charisma, it happens.

Are you really going to be that distraught as a DM if the Dwarf wizard tells you his save DC is 15 instead of 14? Or that he has a +7 to hit, instead of a +6? I often don't give much thought to my players actually modifiers, so I struggle to see how as a DM this would bother me.

Meanwhile, as a player, I have seen the impact and I can see the good. And the player is far more immersed in his sheet and studying it every single session, making it a more obvious impact to them

I am with you. I was a bit more curious as to how the DM views the setting of the world, and its impact on these variant rules. I have had DM's say, Dragonborns don't exist. I am fine with that. And I am fine with a halfling having a 20 strength (although deep down I tend to ignore it rather than embrace it).
But my question really revolved around the DM's view of setting as much as anything. I doubt any DM here, especially those that favor keeping tropes, would care if a skill or attack bonus was +6 or +7. The only thing that matters to are min/maxers. And everyone knows half the reason variant rules exist is to appease the outcry of min/maxers. It is the game within a game. (And it is fun to play.)