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

[EzekielRaiden]

That was indeed my point. - I think simply increasing the points and buying limit would be superior to having to buy points and then assign more points with a different system.

The fact that it would allow more rounded ability arrays to compete with the min/maxed primary-focused arrays is a feature, not a problem to my mind.

My concern, as is the case for any situation where a mathematical structure is changed for aesthetic reasons (you find it aesthetically more pleasing to do away with add-on bonuses and just go straight to the numbers), is that it is not clear or obvious what the balance effect will be. Especially because we have the extra variable of needing to decide what cost 16, 17, and (potentially) 18 should have. It doesn't help that it also has the potential to create perverse incentives (both "specialists are so viable that no one ever plays generalists" and "generalists are so good that there's never any point to being specialized" are possible outcomes here) and is likely to require changes beyond "just remove ability score bonuses from character races" (because of things like standard Human, Half-Elf, Mountain Dwarf, or Gnoll, each of which breaks the usual +2/+1 pattern in some way). Like, 5e is already not a terribly transparent ruleset in terms of what consequences may happen, but I can point to these various things as, "you'll have to sit down and figure them out, too."

None of this should be taken as saying the question is insoluble. It might be insoluble, but it also might not. Regardless, jumping into it because the design would be more consonant/smooth/etc., without concern for the mathematical effects of such a change, is a risk.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Wow. That's a pretty horrific accusation.
Who in this thread has actually been demanding that WotC not publish these optional rules, rather than just expressing dissatisfaction at them or stating that they personally wouldn't use them please?

Well, if my post was a bit too hyperbolic for you... feel free to read my previous eight other posts which were a bit more measured on the subject. But as they still were responded to with people continually arguing that these rules shouldn't be in the new Tasha's book because it's going to spoil their games or be a slippery slope towards what shows up 6E... my own slide to the word "demand" was a pretty easy go (if not wholly warranted.)

 

[Oofta]

Well, if my post was a bit too hyperbolic for you... feel free to read my previous eight other posts which were a bit more measured on the subject. But as they still were responded to with people continually arguing that these rules shouldn't be in the new Tasha's book because it's going to spoil their games or be a slippery slope towards what shows up 6E... my own slide to the word "demand" was a pretty easy go (if not wholly warranted.)

Quote one post saying these rules shouldn't exist, because I missed that.

I think there's more negative than positive to the new rule, but I accept that when/if I get back to playing in AL it will be standard. Whether we use it in my home game will be something we discuss as a group.

But shouldn't have been published? Never said anything about that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sigh

And all the writing I ever do for my characters is now completely meaningless, because all people will see is that gasp of horror I want my classes to have a 16 in their primary stat.

I should be burned at the stake for such heresy. I mean, it isn't like literally every single class advises to do exactly that. Nope, I am a monster who never writes three page backstories tying in the lore of the world, family connections, offering plenty of potential plot hooks for my DMs. None of that is true, I just want more big numbers.

And this is why I shouldn't have clarified what else these rules do beyond what putting my highest stat in the right place would do. Because now, I will be seen as a liar for all the story stuff I honestly do love. After all, three days of advocating for the story potential was just called nonsense, and this, this is my true, dark intention. Min-Maxing.


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

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.

Sure, if you got rid of racial ASI's all together and just made point-buy with a high enough value to get the same value of scores it would be effectively the exact same thing.

I think that would not happen for 5e though, because they would need to rewrite every single race, and that isn't likely, but it would accomplish the same thing.

Wish I had understood that intent from the beginning, so I could avoid the next few days of being called a liar by the people I'm discussing with.

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.

Maybe true, but this misses a few points.

1) The example was talking about the Hobbit, and now we have to go beyond that text

2) Very few people have ever read the Silmarillion, and if they have, it is known that the capabilities of races like the elves altered and changed with the passing ages. So, perhaps Dwarves of the First Age were far tougher, but that does not tell us about Dwarves in the Third Age.

3) Gimli being capable of incredibly feats of endurance does not mean that every dwarven baker can do the same. It is interesting to me that, to my knowledge, we never meet another dwarf other than Gimli then entire length of the LoTR Trilogy, and it is entirely possible that many of the things we attribute to all dwarves, were instead just Gimli being exceptional.

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.

I would argue differently.

This is the Range offering everyone modern compound bows, but there are people who still want to use their traditional bow.

And yeah, it is deliberately setting yourself a handicap. It always was. Now you just can't say you have no choice in the matter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Probably gonna see a lot more Elves after this.

Mountain Dwarves as well.

But yeah Elves are now one of the best races and are tall/fast. Wood Elf is really good.

 

[Azzy]

Probably gonna see a lot more Elves after this.

Mountain Dwarves as well.

But yeah Elves are now one of the best races and are tall/fast. Wood Elf is really good.

I doubt we'll see more elves than the overwhelming glut of elves that we already do see. It's almost not possible. And elves, witheit +2 to the uber-stat are already really good.

 

[Don Durito]

If the summaries so far of the new rules are correct then Half Elves are probably the new king.

+1 to two abiltiy scores of your choice.
+2 to Charisma which you can swap for something else, or for a feat
2 skill proficiencies
Darkvision.
Fey Ancestry.

What's not to like?

They'd be the new variant humans, and the old half-elves, but now not just awesome for Charisma based classes.

 

[Zardnaar]

If the summaries so far of the new rules are correct then Half Elves are probably the new king.

+1 to two abiltiy scores of your choice.
+2 to Charisma which you can swap for something else, or for a feat
2 skill proficiencies
Darkvision.
Fey Ancestry.

What's not to like?

They'd be the new variant humans, and the old half-elves, but now not just awesome for Charisma based classes.

Damn they just obsolete vumans.

 

[Azzy]

And right there you're dead wrong. I support about 20 or so young or not too experienced DMs in my area and they range from 13 to 35 years old and they did voiced their concern to me. Unfortunately, you will not hear from them as most are speaking only French.

Most of them were spectators of our Friday night D&D and learned either right from me or came to appreciate my style and the style of the other three DMs that play ar the store and are coincendentaly, DMing a lot like me as two of these were introduced in the hobby by myself in the late 80s and late 90s respectively. And they have these concerns...

But is it because me and the other DM discussed this in front of many people? Did we influenced them that much with our own concerns? Probably yes. But, save for 5 teenagers that are DMs, the others are adults and they can make up their mind on their own.

That's the rub—how influenced are they by you and other older players are they? And how universal is it for younger players that play with older players to dislike the idea of floating ASIs? And do any younger players that are not influenced by older players at all and have no connection to prior editions (like many of the new players coming into the hobby) particularly care one way or another? Right now we can only rely on personal anecdotes from limited individuals. Given time, perhaps we'll see how this plays out.

I know of 5 DMs that welcome these changes (and not only the racial ones but also some of the rule changes we are aware of) and they're all under 30. So maybe it is also a generational thing, a view point that young adults share. Needless to say that we had some nice debate too (and they were cordial debates) I do hope, however that the Tasha's book will state with a big boxed warning that these rules and changes are optional...

Yeah, I'd have no issues with these rules clearly labled and prefaced as optional. I think, like feats and multiclassing, that this should have group buy-in and should be able to be limited on a campaign by campaign basis (just like I limited races and subclasses to PHB & SCAG for my current campaign—even though I usually allow other sources).

 

[Helldritch]

That's the rub—how influenced are they by you and other older players are they? And how universal is it for younger players that play with older players to dislike the idea of floating ASIs? And do any younger players that are not influenced by older players at all and have no connection to prior editions (like many of the new players coming into the hobby) particularly care one way or another? Right now we can only rely on personal anecdotes from limited individuals. Given time, perhaps we'll see how this plays out.

I'd be hard pressed to find a a group of players that is not influenced by me or one of the other DMs at the store in my area. When you learn with a system, you prefer to keep it that way with minor changes. These rules seems minor for many, but they deeply change the traditional way we see races. The playing against type will no longer mean anything and thus, as a DM I would no longer be "bound" to play the surprise factor for a dwarven wizard in armor or the halfling barb or whatever else comes to mind. IF I were to apply these rules, that is.

Yeah, I'd have no issues with these rules clearly labled and prefaced as optional. I think, like feats and multiclassing, that this should have group buy-in and should be able to be limited on a campaign by campaign basis (just like I limited races and subclasses to PHB & SCAG for my current campaign—even though I usually allow other sources).

And this is what I'd really like to see. These rules should clearly be optional and a big warning should be written in the preface or their respective sections. Unfortunately, an official book will always be seen as official and so will its content be seen as such. Optional yes, but official nonetheless.

It did not take us a lot of testing to see that some feat could be problematic if a DM did not respected the 6-8 encounters per day or that some classes would be gimped without two short rests. Yet, some campaigns were derailed by the 5 MWD exactly as in the 3.xed in my area because the 6-8 encounter was not respected, feats were used, resting rule were standard and all the optional rules in the DMG were in effect (or almost). It is one of the reasons me and the other DMs decided to do Friday night D&D (along side the Friday night MTG games). We brought many MTG into the D&D fold and they're now playing quite regularly. Some of them are quite young and play so often that they get through adventures like a hot knife through butter. Where my groups have 5 to 8 months of play, they do it in about 2 or 3 months at most... and they still play MTG... God I wish I had that amount of time on my hands...