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

[Istbor]

Well I've played a rogue with a 12 dex, but that's not the point. Using Tasha's, a PC dwarven wizard will never be unusual or unexpected. I assume it's actually going to be pretty common (in AL). Instead of "never seen that before" it will be "gee, yet another one ".

I don't get why people don't grasp the concept, even if they don't agree. No race/class concept will be unexpected or unusual, therefore you can no longer play an unexpected/unusual race/class combination. That may not matter to you, and it's certainly not the end of the world for me it's just an aspect of D&D that I will miss.

Disagree. Maybe you are correct, if we take in a survey from every person who has played D&D and found accurately every character they have ever built and played.

You are still going to encounter race/class concepts that you don't normally see. I have little doubt we will continue to see the normal tropes just as often. They are popular for more reason that just mechanical ones.

Personally, I already see to many dang elves and half-elves that I am HOPING this new book will bring about something fresh. PLEASE let me see something else besides one human and 4 elves!

 

[JEB]

You are kidding yourself if you think this optional rule for racial stats will mean an influx of halfling barbarians. They will be just as rare.

I have seen 0 halfling barbarians, and only 2 halfling PCs in all my years. One was a thief and the other a bard. You are worried about this like some terrible event that will never actually come.

Meanwhile, one of the first PCs in my most recent campaign (2014-present) was a halfling barbarian, with a player who chose it because it was an unlikely combo. So YMMV, I guess.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You are kidding yourself if you think this optional rule for racial stats will mean an influx of halfling barbarians. They will be just as rare.

I have seen 0 halfling barbarians, and only 2 halfling PCs in all my years. One was a thief and the other a bard. You are worried about this like some terrible event that will never actually come.

Let’s revisit that prediction in the next year.

you are missing the point by picking one race and class combination in the first place.

secondly, we will see more of whatever is suboptimal now, guaranteed.

In fact, look around. People are talking about the fact that they now can play things (class/race) combos that are not viable now. this is a strong suggestion that they will play things now that they did not play before.

how is that even questionable? How many halfling barbarians in particular? Who knows. But I am certain that any race that optimizers avoid with certain classes will be more common.

respectfully we are back to the notion that the changes won’t change anything. At your table of elves, you might be right. Our table never seems to have elves! Table by table of course things will vary. Overall in the population of players I stand by what I said.

goofy or rare combinations will become less rare. If that does not bother you, great! I think that in particular is a net loss for the game overall with the assumption I like class and race based assumptions and tropes as the baseline.

 

[Scott Christian]

You are kidding yourself if you think this optional rule for racial stats will mean an influx of halfling barbarians. They will be just as rare.

I have seen 0 halfling barbarians, and only 2 halfling PCs in all my years. One was a thief and the other a bard. You are worried about this like some terrible event that will never actually come.

Two sides to this.
You do have a group on here stating this is exactly what you will see - more of the uncommon. And for them that is a good thing. It means individualized characters for individual players.
The other thing, the example you give, is exactly the point of some others. You have seen two halflings: a thief and bard. Both of those classes are classes halflings can excel at based on their bonuses. So, you see a pattern because of the bonus being specific to race. When someone makes those bonuses not racial specific, the rarity of the halfling fighter becomes less special.

 

[Oofta]

Disagree. Maybe you are correct, if we take in a survey from every person who has played D&D and found accurately every character they have ever built and played.

You are still going to encounter race/class concepts that you don't normally see. I have little doubt we will continue to see the normal tropes just as often. They are popular for more reason that just mechanical ones.

Personally, I already see to many dang elves and half-elves that I am HOPING this new book will bring about something fresh. PLEASE let me see something else besides one human and 4 elves!

I think the elves everywhere is twofold. One is the ingrained assumption that elves are basically the same as humans except better. As much as I enjoyed the LOTR movies, elves are awesome and dwarves are comic relief. I get so tired of Legoland clones.

It's also an issue with the supremacy of dex as an uber-stat. I understand the logic behind it, even if I do think it's one of the bigger weaknesses of 5E.

In any case which whatever set of rules you have there will always be one combo that many people that will consider "optimal". I'd say we'll see a lot of hill dwarf wizards for the armor and extra HP, but not sure those benefits will overcome inherent biases against short people.

 

[Scott Christian]

Disagree. Maybe you are correct, if we take in a survey from every person who has played D&D and found accurately every character they have ever built and played.

I think if you take a survey of all the DM's here, and ask them if their players' characters are:
A. min/maxed
B. optimized to be a bit above average
C. sub-optimal
If they voted for all the players they know and have played with... well, I have an idea of the outcome of that poll.

Those that have more players that optimize or min/max do so because they pair race/class combos. The min/maxers pair race/class/background/feat. The sub-optimal players don't pair anything. In fact, they choose to not pair the better race with class. Instead, they may be leaning heavily on a specific story they conjured. Or they are thinking of a specific hyper-focused skill.
(Side note: I had a wood elf barbarian that did piss poor damage and his AC was mediocre. But, he could move 120' per round and still take an action. Sub-optimal for the class. But fun because I got to run around like Usain Bolt.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And finally... as far as your third point is concerned... you and I will just have to disagree on what is an actual "meaningful choice". Because I don't think keeping a demi-human's ability score bonus to only what is printed in the Player's Handbook is in any way, shape, or form... meaningful. Why? Because rather than a Dwarf from the PHB starting a new game using Point Buy to get an INT of 15 (which they can have)... Tasha's now will allow them to start with a 17 instead. A single, one point difference in modifier.

Like I said... not meaningful in way, shape or form. A point better? Sure. But not meaningful. And I don't believe WotC needs to worry about that... and by all accounts, WotC doesn't.

Actually I do agree: a +1 here or there is not that meaningful... and actually that can be used as an argument against that rule. So no harm done with or without that rule. In the end it just serves "optimization" and for people who feel held back by the "loss" of a +1 bonus the rule makes sense. And as I stated, in point buy that rule feels good anyway, because even if you don't want a 16 or 17 and you are totally glad with a 14 or 15, not having a +2 taxes you 2 points you could have spent to raise an 8 to a 10, which I don't like.
In point buy, being able to spend your bonuses as you like is nearly the same as just removing all bonuses and increase point buy value, but I am repeating something I said earlier...
... and when I am at it: I would have liked demi-humans to get a nice power which has more impact than the stat boost. Some are already close: the high elf getting a cantrip, the hill dwarf getting 1 more hp per level, the nimble halfling natural stealthiness.
I do not like the mountain dwarf's armor proficiency and extra stat bonus wherever you like. If it was split into +1 Str and Chainmail proficiency, +1/2 where you like I would feel better (even if it might be even more powerful).
And probably I would feel better with: your +1 or +2 needs to go to your previous +2 went...
But as I already said earlier: I see the optional rule as the most extreme form of freedom that you can allow and you can tweak as you like.
I do the same with the optional rules for healing in the DMG. I am in the middle of gritty and normal and use some parts of the healing surge rule.

 

[Cadence]

And finally... as far as your third point is concerned... you and I will just have to disagree on what is an actual "meaningful choice". Because I don't think keeping a demi-human's ability score bonus to only what is printed in the Player's Handbook is in any way, shape, or form... meaningful. Why? Because rather than a Dwarf from the PHB starting a new game using Point Buy to get an INT of 15 (which they can have)... Tasha's now will allow them to start with a 17 instead. A single, one point difference in modifier.

There are a lot of people on here who refuse to play characters for lack of a +1 bonus because its so big... and every time they miss a roll by one they will blame that choice and be miserable. It feels like its meaningful to them. And then you have a group on the other side in many of those discussions that say the +1 is a bit of a difference, enough to add flavor, but not enough to make something unplayable. That flavor feels meaningful to them.

::::

 

[Scott Christian]

One thing I do not understand. And please, someone help me here.

Of the players and DM's that do not want stat bonuses tied to race, but want it more open, why opt for any bonus? Why not just increase the standard array or point buy?

 

[TwoSix]

One thing I do not understand. And please, someone help me here.

Of the players and DM's that do not want stat bonuses tied to race, but want it more open, why opt for any bonus? Why not just increase the standard array or point buy?

I personally would be fine with that.

WotC, on the other hand, can't do that because they need to do rules changes that integrate with all the common methods of making characters, which includes rolling.