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

[Mistwell]

Half-elf and half-orc clearly do originate with Tolkien. His name is literally Elrond Half-elven. A man of Rohan refers to the army bred by Saruman as half-orcs and goblin-men.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So: Do people think that ASIs assignable to any ability score serve a purpose that isn't covered by simply assigning a high number to that score in the first place?

For my part, they make the math of point-buy (by far my favored method) significantly less spiky. That is, shifting from a 13A-style "+2 from race, +2 from class, can't double up" method to modifying the non-linear point-buy numbers is....difficult, putting it mildly.

I presume, since you have said "a purpose that isn't covered" etc., that you want the point-buy values to permit achieving the same maximum ability score values under either system. Since every D&D (including the older ones where modifiers didn't grow linearly) has made specialization useful, that means we're looking at seeking at or near the highest modifier possible. I'll use the 4e numbers, rather than the 5e ones, mostly because 5e doesn't actually let you buy higher than 15 to begin with, and thus the point-buy value of 16 or 17 is (literally) undefined.

Under the baseline 4e rules, a Dragonborn with +2 Str, +2 Cha can achieve the following array easily:
Str 18 (16+2)
Con 14
Dex 8
Int 10
Wis 13
Cha 16 (14+2)

In order to buy this without the Dragonborn benefits, you would have to go from a 22 to 33 points--a full 50% increase. Notably, this would allow other arrays, such as the following, instead: 16/14/10/13/14/16. By enabling the same top-end results, you also expand what someone who makes relatively small sacrifices can do. That's a potential problem.

Obviously, things might work differently in 5e, particularly depending on how you price buying 16 and 17--the more expensive they are, the more points you have to provide, and the more benefit a "generalist" can squeeze out.

 

[Don Durito]

In 13th Age, I just stopped using point buy and just offered a series of arrays. So I didn't really have to worry about point buy costs and it just became easier to include the +2s into the arrays rather than worry about class/race bonuses at all.

 

[JEB]

It kind of feels like the things that are actually marked optional in the books (like these things in Tasha's) are a whole different level of optional from the things that are just sitting in the PhB and DMG. It feels like the ones labeled "optional" need to be asked about by the players, and the others need to be pre-emptively taken care of by the DM.

In this case, I wonder if part of the angst is worrying that it won't be marked optional in future editions. Doesn't everyone like to have their favorites (and obviously better for general usage) choices marked as the default?

Considering there's folks in this very thread implying that those who don't want to use the Tasha rules would be stomping on their players' fun, I'd quickly expect those rules to be as "optional" as feats and multi-classing are.

And I strongly expect those rules to no longer be optional in future editions, since "dwarves can have whatever stat bonuses you want" is inherently more player-friendly than "dwarves have a fixed stat bonus". And player-friendly sells more books, if nothing else. This won't ruin the game, obviously, but it will certainly change it. Whether it'll be better (much more experimentation with race/class combos), worse (everyone will be optimized for their class with only superficial differences), or a little of both (most likely) remains to be seen.

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, you can go that way. But Constitution is generally physical well-being. The classic "low con" is a sickly person. But I've met sick people who were harder to bend than adamantium rods.

Just because two concepts can be related, does not mean that they must be related.

Fair enough. Stats are great ideas, but as we all know, fall short from real life experiences.

I'd point to the fact that they are travelers, and used to the rigors of travel. They were hand-picked for a long journey, and they had not been living lives of luxury before that.

Meanwhile, Bilbo was literally on his "first step" leaving the comforts of his home for the first time ever.

I don't think it was "inborn natural toughness" as much as it was experience.

That's true. But if a whole group or clan of dwarves are used to the rigors of travel or the hard life, then that group would be considered tough, no?

 

[Alzrius]

They don't need to be uniquely Tolkien, though. Whether or not they aren't uniquely Tolkien, it was to Tolkien that they went to get those things. The massive Middle Earth theme going on with those 26 entries shows that.

I find that assumption questionable at best. Things like trolls turn up in Tolkien's works, but D&D's trolls are clearly not from there, etc.

 

[Alzrius]

Half-elf and half-orc clearly do originate with Tolkien. His name is literally Elrond Half-elven. A man of Rohan refers to the army bred by Saruman as half-orcs and goblin-men.

Sure, notwithstanding a notable quote from Gary on these boards, I don't think anyone is saying that elves and orcs in D&D aren't from Tolkien, half or otherwise.

 

[Oofta]

"Chipping away at archetypes?" No. It isn't.

Or if it is, then those aren't really archetypes that are at all compelling to anyone I've ever played with. Because, you are basing this archetype solely on the mechanical difference. This archetype of the dwarf or the elf is based solely and completely on their physical bodies.

But, not even DnD focuses on that.

What is the most compelling aspect of the Dwarves who show up at the Baggins residence? People might give many answers. "They are tough and hardy" is not one of them. Personally, I find the idea of them being a people adrift, without a home and seeking to reclaim that home.

I think a lot of people at WoTC and TSR tended to agree, because the narrative of the Dwarves returning home, or seeking their home, or defending their home is a huge part of most dwarven stories in most settings. The second big one is the clan, the family, insular groups who are suspicious of outsiders. In fact, dwarves are famously stubborn, and not in a physical way, but in a mental one.

Note, I've never once mentioned their con score, because that is the part of them that is mechanical, it doesn't actually play into their stories.

The Elves? Same deal, and the game started taking these ideas and playing with them every once in a while.

The Sun Elves of FR are your traditional, isolationist, haughty forest lords. The Aereni of Eberron are a group that is still isolationist and perfectionist, but they are defined by their relationship with death, and the living undead gods who help guide their society while being maintained by the love and worship of their descendants.

Timelessness, disconnection from the modern world, the long view, again xenophobia. None of it requires being particularly graceful or able to run along a balance beam.



I find two things wrong with your position here.

The first is that you are forgetting that just because you can change the scores to anything, doesn't mean you have to. A "post-Tasha" world can still have a dwarf with a +2 str/+2 con.

But the second is just that your position is self-contradictory. It isn't about playing a character with low stats, but if you aren't forced to have low stats you cannot possibly have a character whose arc is about overcoming expectations and prejudices? That is just flat out wrong. There is are at least three archetypes in literature built on the idea of actually being incredibly good at something, despite everyone thinking you are bad at it. And I mean across all literature, not game mechanics.

You are taking the potential for change, assuming it is permanent and will be used the way you expect, and then assuming that you are now more limited than you were before, because you are no longer going to be unique. Because, you can still play the exact same character. Only now it is a choice. You and me and everyone else gets to choose how they use these points, instead of being forced to.

And I see the potential for more unusual builds. I see the chance to finally tell some stories that I could really not tell before. I can play an Elven Aasimar, with that classic +2 Dex that elves traditionally have. I can play an Air Genasi Half-Orc with a +2 strength and the mantle of storms. I can play a body-building Elf, and a Demagogue Dwarf.

You see the death knell of playing strange combinations, I see those combinations flourishing. And time will prove one of us right (and likely neither of us, as most people will likely just play the PHB and not even utilize Tasha's at all)

The traditional archetypes of races in D&D is that some races will be better for certain roles and classes than others, Tolkien has nothing to do with it. Tasha's will change that for groups that adopt it. I can no longer play against expectations because if I play that dwarven wizard (or elf barbarian or any other combo) people will just assume I shifted a +2 to intelligence.

I can no longer use a PC to make a point. Just because my PC is "differently abled" does not mean he's unable to achieve the goal of being an effective wizard. I'm pushing back, just a little itty-bitty tiny bit against prejudices and expectations. Same as how I lift weights to push back against the assumption that because I'm short I can't be strong.

Now, every race can be good at every role. A dwarven wizard will no longer be unusual, no race/class combination will be unusual. It's not about "challenging myself" it's about challenging other people's expectations of who can achieve what.

 

[Scott Christian]

The traditional archetypes of races in D&D is that some races will be better for certain roles and classes than others, Tolkien has nothing to do with it. Tasha's will change that for groups that adopt it. I can no longer play against expectations because if I play that dwarven wizard (or elf barbarian or any other combo) people will just assume I shifted a +2 to intelligence.

I can no longer use a PC to make a point. Just because my PC is "differently abled" does not mean he's unable to achieve the goal of being an effective wizard. I'm pushing back, just a little itty-bitty tiny bit against prejudices and expectations. Same as how I lift weights to push back against the assumption that because I'm short I can't be strong.

Now, every race can be good at every role. A dwarven wizard will no longer be unusual, no race/class combination will be unusual. It's not about "challenging myself" it's about challenging other people's expectations of who can achieve what.

I am of the wait and see theory here. But gut instincts are real.

If you remove something from being okay at a class to everything being equal at a class, then the mechanical choices ones make are moot. This leads to all the D&D players not being able to make their "my wizard is better than yours." That takes some of the fun out of the game. But it also does this...
For people like Oofta (I believe) it removes ingrained patterns that develops from players making characters. And it is about patterns. They develop based on stereotypes. And to play against the stereotype is fun and interesting. That is how a dark elf was born into myth. You see very few high elf barbarians. Why? Because they are not optimized for the class. Say what you want about D&D's base, but a huge majority of them choose to make the stronger character as opposed to the one that focuses on other things. That is what making everything equal does.
Sure, you may now see high elf barbarians, but does that make the game any better?

 

[Maxperson]

I find that assumption questionable at best. Things like trolls turn up in Tolkien's works, but D&D's trolls are clearly not from there, etc.

We're talking about that Chainmail list, which is clearly extremely heavily Tolkien influenced. Once had to change things further to distance D&D from Tolkien, it's not a surprise that trolls were made into something that didn't resemble Tolkien's in much more than name.