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

[Warpiglet-7]

Yeah, amazing, that the attribute bonuses given to races was actually stifling people's creative drive to play them. Imagine if there was this optional rule coming out that let people play what they wanted instead of what the games arbitrary mechanics promoted!?

I agree. This doesn't really change anything at all, and yet we have people acting like the Elves as they known them will never be the same. As if they will one day have a group of players that they attempt to convince of Elven dexterity, but are dismissed? Something. There is a certain element of feeling as those what people liked of their hobby or childhood going to be lost. That isn't true. We will probably (hopefully) see more variety.

I don't agree this will be some net loss for the game. I think the impact is overblown. People are going to generally stick to whatever tropes they like. Some may experiment for a character or two, if they play that many different characters or games. Then, I would argue, go back to their favorites. Whenever I get to play I do like to try out a caster or something different, but the rest of the time I play some melee bloke. It is what I like. I'd say typically that character is Human. Though I do like Lizardfolk and Dragonborn. Those scaly boys... However contrary to your stated tastes, I don't give one fig whether people play to tropes or not.

Again missing the point I think.

the tropes are there to play against too. More to the point If everything is equally desirable and fits equally well....haha, nevermind.

I am glad you like the changes.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Depends on the max score than you could buy with this replacement system, and the number of points that you get.

Would being able to purchase a score of 16 suffice, or do you think people would insist on 18, as that is the highest achievable score using the current point-buy system?

Without coming up with a whole new way to handle ability checks:

I'd say the goal should be that a player who wants the best possible starting ability score in their key ability score should be able to get that, regardless of race/class combo. I would allow the cost of getting there to vary by race (so a 16 strength gnome had to give up more than a 16 strength orc), but the starting (effective - ie modifier not score) max should be the same.

FWIW, Pathfinder 2e found a way to do this with racial ability mods in play. The easy answer is still 'no racial ability mods,' though.

 

[Istbor]

Well, we agree on our love of dwarves.

But ... I 've suggested and run single race campaigns in the past. If I suggest elves, everyone is on board. Suggest dwarves (or heaven forbid halflings or gnomes) and there's always at least 1 player who refused to play "short" races. The bias runs deep.

Just to be clear, I haven't even decided on this rule for my home campaign. It's not the worst change in the world, I'll just miss being able to play a PC that spits in the eye of conventional wisdom on the choice of race in AL.

I am on board as long as it isn't an all Gnome party.

I don't know yet either. I will probably play it by ear. If people want it, it is there. I will probably see more mileage out of it when world building and I suppose if I ever get back into the AL circuit.

 

[Istbor]

Again missing the point I think.

the tropes are there to play against too. More to the point If everything is equally desirable and fits equally well....haha, nevermind.

I am glad you like the changes.

I am not sure I am missing the point. I think we just see these optional rules differently. Nothing wrong with that.

Tropes will survive this. The drunken Dwarf Fighter will still be a played and iconic character. Woodsy Elven Rangers will still reign supreme in all things Ranger.

 

[Chaosmancer]

OK. Are you able to elucidate?

Yes, but I'm know I'm going to get raked over the coals for it again.

It helps break through into the 16+ section of the scores. You can't do that by assigning high scores. And, I have had personal expeirence multiple times that tells me the math of the game really tilts towards being less effective and doing poorly when you only have a 14 or 15 in your highest stat.

I'll probably get called a power gaming munchkin (again) for this, but my tables have seen it multiple times, and we really and honestly have come to the conclusion that being actually good enough at something to feel competent beyond the lowest of levels in your primary class goals, requires having at least a 16 in your scores.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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?

But tougher than a group of humans used to the same?

We have to keep in mind that a +2 is meant, mechanically, to be "better than human". And I don't think the Dwarves in the Hobbit show any more endurance or toughness than a similarly weathered group of humans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

That's a fine goal, a commendable one even, but... I don't see it.

In fact, I literally cannot see it. the only people who can see you doing that are the people at your table. I can't see you pushing back against the culture that says Dwarves make poor wizards by playing your Int 14 dwarf and being a wizard. Which, despite me acknowledging that mechanically 14 is bad... Story-wise makes your Dwarf a very smart person. On the level of working scientists and researchers (I've been told 16 is around where "Genius" starts)

So, mechanically you've proven that the expectations are wrong, but also story-wise very smart dwarf can be a wizard isn't ground-breaking.

Also, you want to make a point. You want to make a statement about "differently abled" people... I want to play a dwarf wizard. If I want to make a statement with that character, I'll do something with the backstory, but I don't need to make this into something grand and big and a statement.

And, again, it is great you have an agenda by playing against type, but I can't make everything into an agenda. I think every race can be good at every role. I don't want there to be inequalities in my game so I can play against expectations and show there are no inequalities in the game.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snipped
Sure, you may now see high elf barbarians, but does that make the game any better?

I see no reason that it actually makes the game worse. So, it is either neutral or a benefit.

And I've listed quite a few benefits, like an easier time showing plane-touched of various races, so High Elf Barbarians, but also High Elf Earth Genasi Barbarians. Seems like it is a net positive.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Snip

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.

Seeing more race/class combos that rarely get seen, but would expand upon the lore of the races in interesting ways is a net loss for the game?

Well, I could not disagree more strongly with this position if I tried.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Yes, but I'm know I'm going to get raked over the coals for it again.

It helps break through into the 16+ section of the scores. You can't do that by assigning high scores. And, I have had personal expeirence multiple times that tells me the math of the game really tilts towards being less effective and doing poorly when you only have a 14 or 15 in your highest stat.

I'll probably get called a power gaming munchkin (again) for this, but my tables have seen it multiple times, and we really and honestly have come to the conclusion that being actually good enough at something to feel competent beyond the lowest of levels in your primary class goals, requires having at least a 16 in your scores.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But tougher than a group of humans used to the same?

We have to keep in mind that a +2 is meant, mechanically, to be "better than human". And I don't think the Dwarves in the Hobbit show any more endurance or toughness than a similarly weathered group of humans.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's a fine goal, a commendable one even, but... I don't see it.

In fact, I literally cannot see it. the only people who can see you doing that are the people at your table. I can't see you pushing back against the culture that says Dwarves make poor wizards by playing your Int 14 dwarf and being a wizard. Which, despite me acknowledging that mechanically 14 is bad... Story-wise makes your Dwarf a very smart person. On the level of working scientists and researchers (I've been told 16 is around where "Genius" starts)

So, mechanically you've proven that the expectations are wrong, but also story-wise very smart dwarf can be a wizard isn't ground-breaking.

Also, you want to make a point. You want to make a statement about "differently abled" people... I want to play a dwarf wizard. If I want to make a statement with that character, I'll do something with the backstory, but I don't need to make this into something grand and big and a statement.

And, again, it is great you have an agenda by playing against type, but I can't make everything into an agenda. I think every race can be good at every role. I don't want there to be inequalities in my game so I can play against expectations and show there are no inequalities in the game.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok there. You were clear about your view it is good for mechanics/effectiveness, min max whatever.

at least you are saying it instead of nonsense about story.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yes, but I'm know I'm going to get raked over the coals for it again.

It helps break through into the 16+ section of the scores. You can't do that by assigning high scores. And, I have had personal expeirence multiple times that tells me the math of the game really tilts towards being less effective and doing poorly when you only have a 14 or 15 in your highest stat.

I'll probably get called a power gaming munchkin (again) for this, but my tables have seen it multiple times, and we really and honestly have come to the conclusion that being actually good enough at something to feel competent beyond the lowest of levels in your primary class goals, requires having at least a 16 in your scores.

Apologies for not being clear: I'm assuming that the limit and points available will be increased to allow for scores higher than 15 to be purchased. Whether that means 16, 17, or 18 would be a matter of discussion.

I just do not think that assigning your character's ability scores using two different points systems to do the same thing is necessary, and believe that making it a single step would have advantages.

But tougher than a group of humans used to the same?

We have to keep in mind that a +2 is meant, mechanically, to be "better than human". And I don't think the Dwarves in the Hobbit show any more endurance or toughness than a similarly weathered group of humans.

Dwarves being generally tougher than humans is spelled out in the Silmarillion. In Lord of the Rings when they are chasing the orcs who took the halflings in Gimli is also written as having much more stamina and will to continue than both Legolas and Aragorn - both of whom are capable wilderness-oriented people.

That's a fine goal, a commendable one even, but... I don't see it.

In fact, I literally cannot see it. the only people who can see you doing that are the people at your table. I can't see you pushing back against the culture that says Dwarves make poor wizards by playing your Int 14 dwarf and being a wizard. Which, despite me acknowledging that mechanically 14 is bad... Story-wise makes your Dwarf a very smart person. On the level of working scientists and researchers (I've been told 16 is around where "Genius" starts)

So, mechanically you've proven that the expectations are wrong, but also story-wise very smart dwarf can be a wizard isn't ground-breaking.

Also, you want to make a point. You want to make a statement about "differently abled" people... I want to play a dwarf wizard. If I want to make a statement with that character, I'll do something with the backstory, but I don't need to make this into something grand and big and a statement.

And, again, it is great you have an agenda by playing against type, but I can't make everything into an agenda. I think every race can be good at every role. I don't want there to be inequalities in my game so I can play against expectations and show there are no inequalities in the game.

I would liken playing against type to like using a traditional bow in hobby archery. You might get slightly lower numbers in one aspect compared to the person who optimised with a modern, sighted bow, but you can derive just as much if not more enjoyment from it.
Using the Tasha's rules would be the equivalent to everyone using modern compound bows, sights, and release triggers: you can still set yourself a greater challenge by closing your eyes or similar, but it feels much more like deliberately setting yourself a handicap just for the sake of it.

 

[Don Durito]

A simple way to address things would be to remove the escalating costs for higher scores in point buy - then there wouldn't really be any downside to just adding the extra points to the point buy.

I'm not really sure the escalating points serve a particular purpose anyway (especially when there is an upper limit. Sure you could possibly end up with three 16s and three 8s, but how many people are likely to do that, and would it really be optimal anyway? (And the benefit would be it would make it less punishing to actually have a high Intelligence if you're not an Artificer or Wizard)

 

[Azzy]

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'm cool with that, too. In fact, if that happened, the bonuses could also be replaced with more thematic and archetypal racial features.

 

[Azzy]

A simple way to address things would be to remove the escalating costs for higher scores in point buy - then there wouldn't really be any downside to just adding the extra points to the point buy.

I'm not really sure the escalating points serve a particular purpose anyway (especially when there is an upper limit. Sure you could possibly end up with three 16s and three 8s, but how many people are likely to do that, and would it really be optimal anyway? (And the benefit would be it would make it less punishing to actually have a high Intelligence if you're not an Artificer or Wizard)

I believe that the escalating points are there to simulate the distribution of rolling dice (where higher/lower score are statistically less likely and the majority of the scores are likely to cluster around the mean). It would make more sense if rolled scores also had a floor of 8, like point buy, but that's not likely something that those that prefer dice rolling to find desirable.