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

[Azzy]

I think the reinforcement of how people play, what races they pick and how they apply points matters more than the actual bonus. A +1 or 2 to any given ability is not that big of a deal, but enough people care that they gravitate towards those race/class combinations. It becomes a self-sustaining loop of sorts. Rather than putting that 15 into strength for that elf, they'll pick a dwarf or half-orc so they get that vaunted +1 bonus.

But why are you interested in reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?

 

[Don Durito]

But why are you interested in reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?

Why were WOTC?

 

[Azzy]

Why were WOTC?

That's deflecting from the question and is irrelevant.

 

[Don Durito]

That's deflecting from the question and is irrelevant.

Is it? Your question seemed so loaded I assumed it was rhetorical.

 

[Oofta]

But why are you interested in reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?

I've explained my thoughts on this multiple times. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Azzy]

Is it? Your question seemed so loaded I assumed it was rhetorical.

Yes, it is. WotC's motivations (never mind they have reversed course on that with Tasha's) have nothing to do with any motivation of an individual on the boards.

It wasn't rhetorical. However, if you assumed it was rhetorical, then why answer?

 

[Don Durito]

Yes, it is. WotC's motivations (never mind they have reversed course on that with Tasha's) have nothing to do with any motivation of an individual on the boards.

It wasn't rhetorical. However, if you assumed it was rhetorical, then why answer?

Ummm...clearly I didn't answer your question I asked a different one.

It's seems to me that iit s relevant because you accuse people of "reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?", when clearly what people are doing is expressing their prefence for what the rules should be, which in this case is also for them remaining what they have been for the last however many years. What the rules are has nothing to do with forcing stereotypes on anyone else. Just as people in this thread have said you can ignore the new rules it was always possible to ignore the old ones.

It just seems to me bizarre and somewhat unreasonably aggressive to ask such loaded questions.

As I've said before, flexibility was added, then it was clearly deliberately and consciously removed and now it's being added back in. I just think that context and the motives for both original backpedaling and the current backpedaling of the backpedaling are relevant. Did WOTC do research back in DND Next and find that the players overwhelmingly wanted the rules to reflect traditonal archetypes? Or was it purely the preference of the designers? Was it a kneejerk reaction to what they thought the player base wanted. And if enforcing racial archetypes was the player preference do they have any real reason to think that's changed?

But I don't know. Everytime lately I've suggested stepping back from an argument, looking at the context and considering a bit more nuance, people tell me that it's irrelevant. I guess a lot of people like being morally indignant and talking past each other endlessly.

 

[Maxperson]

Anecdotes are nice and all, but your experiences do not jibe with the data that D&D Beyond and WotC have shared (and which is more representative of the larger player base than your personal experiences). Also, I've played a non-variant human (that was a ranger, no less).

Why, though? Those extra +1s aren't that great. You don't really need your 3rd-6th stats. With the variant human you get your two +1s, an extra proficiency and a feat. That feat can be a minor feat to get a second +1 for basically a floating +2 and floating +1, or a major feat. That's a lot better than a few +1s in stats that aren't all that useful.

 

[Azzy]

Ummm...clearly I didn't answer your question I asked a different one.

It's seems to me that iit s relevant because you accuse people of "reinforcing traditional stereotypes on other people's characters—especially when they are not gaming with you?", when clearly what people are doing is expressing their prefence for what the rules should be, which in this case is also for them remaining what they have been for the last however many years. What the rules are has nothing to do with forcing stereotypes on anyone else. Just as people in this thread have said you can ignore the new rules it was always possible to ignore the old ones.

Sorry, but it doesn't seem as clear to me as it does to you. If that's honestly the case, then I retract my question.

It just seems to me bizarre and somewhat unreasonably aggressive to ask such loaded questions.

As I've said before, flexibility was added, then it was clearly deliberately and consciously removed and now it's being added back in. I just think that context and the motives for both original backpedaling and the current backpedaling of the backpedaling are relevant. Did WOTC do research back in DND Next and find that the players overwhelmingly wanted the rules to reflect traditonal archetypes? Or was it purely the preference of the designers? Was it a kneejerk reaction to what they thought the player base wanted. And if enforcing racial archetypes was the player preference do they have any real reason to think that's changed?

I believe that there are ample ways to reinforce archetypes that don't involve ASIs. I also think that there should also be a way to subvert these archetypes within the rules as well as DMs/players/other TTRPGs/settings have been doing this for decades. Now there are rules that make it much easier to do. Could those rules (in Tasha's) be better? Certainly, but it's a start. Do they invalidate traditional archetypes? No, they simply add flexibility.

But I don't know. Everytime lately I've suggested stepping back from an argument, looking at the context and considering a bit more nuance, people tell me that it's irrelevant. I guess a lot of people like being morally indignant and talking past each other endlessly.

Eh, I'm just getting annoyed with "because tradition". YMMV.

 

[Azzy]

Why, though? Those extra +1s aren't that great. You don't really need your 3rd-6th stats. With the variant human you get your two +1s, an extra proficiency and a feat. That feat can be a minor feat to get a second +1 for basically a floating +2 and floating +1, or a major feat. That's a lot better than a few +1s in stats that aren't all that useful.

Because there weren't any feats that I wanted to start with when I created my character, so I just went with the non-variant. Also, those +1s do help with various saving throws and ability checks.