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

[Remathilis]

Huh. Here I thought mountain dwarves got a +2 to strength and hill dwarves got a +1 to wisdom because that's what the PHB told us they got. Also, that they're fantasy made up races and can be just about anything.

Guess we needed a hundred or so posts to clarify that for some reason.

Close. Mountain dwarves get +2 Str and Hill +1 Wis because... in every edition they had the same ability modifiers.
1e (MM and UA) +1 Con, -1 Cha.
2e (Complete Book of Dwarves) +1 Con, -1 Cha
3e/3.5 (MM): +2 Con, -2 Cha
4e (HoFK) +2 Con, +2 Str or Wis (player choice, no bearing on the actual sub chosen)

Giving Mountain dwarves a different ability mod than Hill dwarves is THIS EDITION years old. It's not sacred text. It was a way to justify them being separate subraces in 5e where subraces have far more weight.

Long story short; they gave them different ability mods to justify the subraces even existing. There is no deep lore rationale, just a mechanical niche that needed filling. Looking for lore reasons for it is a fool's errand.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

A lot has been said in this thread. There is a lot of assumption about why some players want certain things and often this is immaterial if not just wrong.

I am Personally concerned about a game design decision not apparently based on the health of the game in the same way I would be worried about someone using a recipe for a cake not primarily based on taste. You can have more than one competing motivation, but if it doesn’t taste good in the end, why bake the cake?

the simplest point of difference between posters so far seems to be a desire for a class and race based system with clearly defined packages vs. others who want more customization.

and then on top of that, a few of us think the class and race based system is a part of D&D’s enduring appeal and brand identity. I think playing against type gets rolled in here.

nowhere has anyone said someone is an asshat for wanting a particular rule change. No one has said wanting more power is inherently bad. Afterall, if I can get it in one package, it’s not like it is less. It just looks and behaves in more archetypal fashion. You can get a 16 primary stat many ways. In fact all races can ultimately have a 20.

Assertions to the contrary are really just some sort of projection. Personally, I don’t dump a main stat ever. I like a 16 or better for an attack stat. I am willing to wait a few levels to make it happen.

follow your happiness. Just as importantly find a group that likes the similar things. I don’t think the game will die out as a result of these changes. I don’t think it will flourish because of a solution that finally found a problem, either.

I do think it will take time to see how it changes the game overall. I suspect some of us like things as they are. That preference is every bit as valid as any other.

the full impact won’t be felt this edition. I think if this anything goes becomes standard in 6e, we will get a better idea.

I have rejected some changes over time and whole editions and embraced others. Ultimately, no big deal. Can do it again. Would have preferred they saved it for 6e but suppose this is the first foray.

And yet still laugh at the doublespeak of Crawford about the problems that had to be addressed. Yeah, the game has been tanking and people are leaving in droves....what?

 

[Maxperson]

So, if it doesn't matter why, then it doesn't matter if we change it?

I mean, we have the game designers telling us that it won't break the math of the game. The reason why the races have their bonuses doesn't matter. So... why defend it? There is no reason, so there is no reason to keep it.

I didn't say that there was no reason to keep it. I said the specific fluff to explain it doesn't matter. Make Hill Dwarves very perceptive for your game, or steeped in ancient wisdoms, or blessed by the gods with wisdom, or or or or...

The PHB Tells us that these two races are mechanically identical. People claimed that they had their bonuses do to culture. The sources we have tell us that those races are culturally incompatible.

I'm not sure how you can sit there and say that +2 con, +2 strength and dwarven armor training is mechanically identical to +2 con, +1 wis and Dwarven Toughness. I mean, it's an objectively wrong statement.

I am not going to argue definitions with you Max. I have found greater success breaking steel walls with my bare hands. So, this will be my last word on this part of the issue.

I will let this go this one time. Next time, though, that you tell me that you don't want to continue, don't belie that claim by giving a response. Either drop it completely, or respond, because if you do both I'm going to respond as your lengthy response indicates that you truly desire.

 

[Oofta]

Close. Mountain dwarves get +2 Str and Hill +1 Wis because... in every edition they had the same ability modifiers.
1e (MM and UA) +1 Con, -1 Cha.
2e (Complete Book of Dwarves) +1 Con, -1 Cha
3e/3.5 (MM): +2 Con, -2 Cha
4e (HoFK) +2 Con, +2 Str or Wis (player choice, no bearing on the actual sub chosen)

Giving Mountain dwarves a different ability mod than Hill dwarves is THIS EDITION years old. It's not sacred text. It was a way to justify them being separate subraces in 5e where subraces have far more weight.

Long story short; they gave them different ability mods to justify the subraces even existing. There is no deep lore rationale, just a mechanical niche that needed filling. Looking for lore reasons for it is a fool's errand.

I only play 5E at the moment, so I only care about the 5E PHB dwarves. Once upon a time dwarves couldn't be wizards at all, now people are saying they can't possibly play a dwarven wizard because they are totally crippled by the lack of a +1. Time have changed.

As far as origin and fluff ... that gets tweaked for every edition and changes from campaign to campaign so not sure I care much. After all "lore" is often just the tail wagging the dog and justification for rules they decided to implement for other reasons.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Huh. Here I thought mountain dwarves got a +2 to strength and hill dwarves got a +1 to wisdom because that's what the PHB told us they got. Also, that they're fantasy made up races and can be just about anything.

Guess we needed a hundred or so posts to clarify that for some reason.

Wonderful. They are made up races and can be anything.

So they can be made up to have a floating ASI of +2 and +1. So... why were we saying that that would ruin the game when those scores were meaningless in the first place?

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

I didn't say that there was no reason to keep it. I said the specific fluff to explain it doesn't matter. Make Hill Dwarves very perceptive for your game, or steeped in ancient wisdoms, or blessed by the gods with wisdom, or or or or...

So what is the reason to keep it, if there it doesn't matter the specific reason in the first place?

I mean, I could say they get +1 Charisma because they are used to negotiating deals, or because they have a strong traditional of oral history and debate, or because they tend to wear fancier clothes or or or or or... So, I have just as strong of a justification for Charisma as Wisdom, so how is allowing the ability to switch from Wisdom to Charisma bad?

I'm not sure how you can sit there and say that +2 con, +2 strength and dwarven armor training is mechanically identical to +2 con, +1 wis and Dwarven Toughness. I mean, it's an objectively wrong statement.

OH MY !@#$%^&^%$# !@#$%Y^%$#@

BECAUSE I'M NOT SAYING THAT!!

Good god above, this has to be why I am struggling to get through to you, because you keep thinking I'm saying something that I am not saying. I am going to break this down, one.last.time.

In the Player's Handbook, after you get done reading about Dwarves, they have the mechanical subrace for Hill Dwarves. They get +1 Wisdom and Toughness. I am going to call them Dwarf X for the rest of this post.

After that they have the mechanical Mountain Dwarves, they get +2 Strength and Armor Proficiency. I am going to call them Dwarf Y.

So, to repeat, Dwarf X gets Wisdom and Toughness, Dwarf Y gets Strength and Armor. Okay, are we following so far?


Now. In the section for Dwarf X, it says that these dwarves are represented in settings by the Hill Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Gold Dwarves of Faerun.

In the section for Dwarf Y, it says that these dwarves are represented in settings by the Mountain Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Shield Dwarves of Faerun.

So, to repeat, Dwarf X (which gets +1 Wisdom and toughness) is represented by the Hill Dwarves and the Gold Dwarves, while Dwarf Y (which gets +2 Strength and Armor proficiency) is represented by the Mountain Dwarves and the Shield Dwarves.


Now. Because of this, we can safely say that the Mountain Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Shield Dwarves of Faerun, as well as the Hill Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Gold Dwarves of Faerun, are mechanically identical. Because the Mountain Dwarves and Shield Dwarves are both Dwarf Y (getting strength and armor proficiency mechanically) and the Hill Dwarves and the Gold Dwarves are both Dwarf X (getting Wisdom and Toughness)


So, in the listing of Groups, I could list this, and be mechanically correct.

Group 1: Dwarf X, Hill Dwarf, Gold Dwarf
Group 2: Dwarf Y, Mountain Dwarf, Shield Dwarf.


By this stage in my argument, I have done nothing except very slowly and very carefully repeat the PHB, so there should be no disagreement by this point. Those two groups are 100% accurate to the mechanics.



Now, it was originally claimed that the reason for the difference in mechanical modifiers (Dwarf X getting Wisdom and Dwarf Y getting strength) was because of Culture. If this statement were true we would expect that Hill Dwarves from Greyhawk and Gold Dwarves from Faerun, would have similiar cultures. Because both are Dwarf X, and both get the same mechanical ASI. So, if culture were the Root of the ASIs, then they should match up.

To save time, I am going to pull out the two big identifying features to summarize the cultures. I am going to call one "Open Dwarves" for the increased likelihood of close relations with other races and "Shut-in Dwarves" for those who are more xenophobic and unwilling to trust outsiders. This is a simplification, but I have made my case for these differences repeatedly and this is just to get you to understand the argument.

So, what do we find?

Group 3: Open Dwarves, Hill Dwarves, Shield Dwarves
Group 4: Shut-in Dwarves, Mountain Dwarves, Gold Dwarves


By all rights, Group 3 should be the exact same as Group 1. Hill Dwarves and Gold Dwarves both get the +1 Wisdom from Dwarf X, so Dwarf X should be the Open Dwarves. And at the same time, Group 4 should equal Group 2.

However, what we really have is that the Shield Dwarves culturally are more similar to the Hill Dwarves. And that culturally the Mountain Dwarves and Gold Dwarves share more similarities. Even though they mechanically are opposed.

This means, to me, that since the Cultural group does not equal the mechanical group, and in fact they are flipped opposite for the Faerun dwarves, who are supposed to represent the same mechanics as the Greyhawk Dwarves, that culture has nothing to do with it.

Because if it did, then Group 1 would be identical to group 3.

At no point am I ever saying that Dwarf X equals Dwarf Y. I only care about Dwarf X and Dwarf Y as they pertain to grouping the Hill, Mountain, Gold and Shield dwarves as per the player's handbook information.

I have now gone into exhaustive detail, showing exactly what I am saying. If you don't get it now, I literally do not know what else to do.

 

[Oofta]

Wonderful. They are made up races and can be anything.

So they can be made up to have a floating ASI of +2 and +1. So... why were we saying that that would ruin the game when those scores were meaningless in the first place?

They could also be 10 ft tall and purple. What's your point?

"Have to have" a wizard with 16 int at level 1? There are plenty of options.

 

[Maxperson]

Wonderful. They are made up races and can be anything.

So they can be made up to have a floating ASI of +2 and +1. So... why were we saying that that would ruin the game when those scores were meaningless in the first place?

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




So what is the reason to keep it, if there it doesn't matter the specific reason in the first place?

I mean, I could say they get +1 Charisma because they are used to negotiating deals, or because they have a strong traditional of oral history and debate, or because they tend to wear fancier clothes or or or or or... So, I have just as strong of a justification for Charisma as Wisdom, so how is allowing the ability to switch from Wisdom to Charisma bad?



OH MY !@#$%^&^%$# !@#$%Y^%$#@

BECAUSE I'M NOT SAYING THAT!!

Good god above, this has to be why I am struggling to get through to you, because you keep thinking I'm saying something that I am not saying. I am going to break this down, one.last.time.

In the Player's Handbook, after you get done reading about Dwarves, they have the mechanical subrace for Hill Dwarves. They get +1 Wisdom and Toughness. I am going to call them Dwarf X for the rest of this post.

After that they have the mechanical Mountain Dwarves, they get +2 Strength and Armor Proficiency. I am going to call them Dwarf Y.

So, to repeat, Dwarf X gets Wisdom and Toughness, Dwarf Y gets Strength and Armor. Okay, are we following so far?


Now. In the section for Dwarf X, it says that these dwarves are represented in settings by the Hill Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Gold Dwarves of Faerun.

In the section for Dwarf Y, it says that these dwarves are represented in settings by the Mountain Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Shield Dwarves of Faerun.

So, to repeat, Dwarf X (which gets +1 Wisdom and toughness) is represented by the Hill Dwarves and the Gold Dwarves, while Dwarf Y (which gets +2 Strength and Armor proficiency) is represented by the Mountain Dwarves and the Shield Dwarves.


Now. Because of this, we can safely say that the Mountain Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Shield Dwarves of Faerun, as well as the Hill Dwarves of Greyhawk and the Gold Dwarves of Faerun, are mechanically identical. Because the Mountain Dwarves and Shield Dwarves are both Dwarf Y (getting strength and armor proficiency mechanically) and the Hill Dwarves and the Gold Dwarves are both Dwarf X (getting Wisdom and Toughness)


So, in the listing of Groups, I could list this, and be mechanically correct.

Group 1: Dwarf X, Hill Dwarf, Gold Dwarf
Group 2: Dwarf Y, Mountain Dwarf, Shield Dwarf.


By this stage in my argument, I have done nothing except very slowly and very carefully repeat the PHB, so there should be no disagreement by this point. Those two groups are 100% accurate to the mechanics.



Now, it was originally claimed that the reason for the difference in mechanical modifiers (Dwarf X getting Wisdom and Dwarf Y getting strength) was because of Culture. If this statement were true we would expect that Hill Dwarves from Greyhawk and Gold Dwarves from Faerun, would have similiar cultures. Because both are Dwarf X, and both get the same mechanical ASI. So, if culture were the Root of the ASIs, then they should match up.

To save time, I am going to pull out the two big identifying features to summarize the cultures. I am going to call one "Open Dwarves" for the increased likelihood of close relations with other races and "Shut-in Dwarves" for those who are more xenophobic and unwilling to trust outsiders. This is a simplification, but I have made my case for these differences repeatedly and this is just to get you to understand the argument.

So, what do we find?

Group 3: Open Dwarves, Hill Dwarves, Shield Dwarves
Group 4: Shut-in Dwarves, Mountain Dwarves, Gold Dwarves


By all rights, Group 3 should be the exact same as Group 1. Hill Dwarves and Gold Dwarves both get the +1 Wisdom from Dwarf X, so Dwarf X should be the Open Dwarves. And at the same time, Group 4 should equal Group 2.

However, what we really have is that the Shield Dwarves culturally are more similar to the Hill Dwarves. And that culturally the Mountain Dwarves and Gold Dwarves share more similarities. Even though they mechanically are opposed.

This means, to me, that since the Cultural group does not equal the mechanical group, and in fact they are flipped opposite for the Faerun dwarves, who are supposed to represent the same mechanics as the Greyhawk Dwarves, that culture has nothing to do with it.

Because if it did, then Group 1 would be identical to group 3.

At no point am I ever saying that Dwarf X equals Dwarf Y. I only care about Dwarf X and Dwarf Y as they pertain to grouping the Hill, Mountain, Gold and Shield dwarves as per the player's handbook information.

I have now gone into exhaustive detail, showing exactly what I am saying. If you don't get it now, I literally do not know what else to do.

Well, I'm getting tired of this. I really don't care all that much about sub-race stat bonuses. It's the racial bonuses that I care about the most. The con for dwarves, dex for elves, etc. I've already put forward that those should be kept and a floating background/class/fluff/whatever bonus of +2 be given for the sake of versatility.

Do I like sub-race bonuses? Yes. It's nice for them to have some differentiation and I will be keeping them. Freeform stat bonuses where nothing is tied to anything will never enter my game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They could also be 10 ft tall and purple. What's your point?

"Have to have" a wizard with 16 int at level 1? There are plenty of options.

Well, I'm going to be following the rules. And unless I use enlarge on a Tielfing, there is no way to make someone 10 ft tall and purple.

But since it doesn't matter why any race as any given ASI, then Tasha's rules can't break any lore or anything else. Because, in your own words "Huh. Here I thought mountain dwarves got a +2 to strength and hill dwarves got a +1 to wisdom because that's what the PHB told us they got. Also, that they're fantasy made up races and can be just about anything."

So, my point is you have been arguing for an arbitrary adherence to arbitrary rules that you don't even really care about. Id it doesn't matter why the Dwarves get their bonuses, then it doesn't matter if they are changed.

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

Well, I'm getting tired of this. I really don't care all that much about sub-race stat bonuses. It's the racial bonuses that I care about the most. The con for dwarves, dex for elves, etc. I've already put forward that those should be kept and a floating background/class/fluff/whatever bonus of +2 be given for the sake of versatility.

Do I like sub-race bonuses? Yes. It's nice for them to have some differentiation and I will be keeping them. Freeform stat bonuses where nothing is tied to anything will never enter my game.

Wow. just wow.

See, if the sub-race stats don't matter, why do the Racial stats?

I mean, those are a lot easier to defend, since races like Firbolgs and Kenku are generally incredibly one-note with them basically being copied and pasted between settings, so there isn't all this confusion due to, you know, actually having multiple versions of lore.

However, that doesn't absolve us of other problems. Just off the top of my head, with your +2 to your "standard" stat and +2 floating, you would need to decide what is the most important stat for a lot of races. Are Dragonborn more defined by their strength or their charisma? Tritons by their Strength, Consitution, or Charisma? Bugbears by their Strength or their Dexterity?

But, I get the feeling that like Oofta, you don't really care. You aren't arguing from any solid position. After all, to requote you "I said the specific fluff to explain it doesn't matter."

It doesn't matter why they have those stats, you just want them to have them. There doesn't need to be a reason. And, of course, Tasha's rules will allow you to give them those stats, if you desire to. They are arbitrarily assigned now, and later, so nothing has changed. But, you are just going to stick with the pre-assignments, and maybe bother to box in the other races. Or maybe not.

 

[Maxperson]

See, if the sub-race stats don't matter, why do the Racial stats?

I mean, those are a lot easier to defend, since races like Firbolgs and Kenku are generally incredibly one-note with them basically being copied and pasted between settings, so there isn't all this confusion due to, you know, actually having multiple versions of lore.

However, that doesn't absolve us of other problems. Just off the top of my head, with your +2 to your "standard" stat and +2 floating, you would need to decide what is the most important stat for a lot of races. Are Dragonborn more defined by their strength or their charisma? Tritons by their Strength, Consitution, or Charisma? Bugbears by their Strength or their Dexterity?

Dragonborn: Strength.
Bugbears: Strength.
Tritons: Let them pick 2 out of the 3.

But, I get the feeling that like Oofta, you don't really care. You aren't arguing from any solid position. After all, to requote you "I said the specific fluff to explain it doesn't matter."

I care very much about the racial stats. It's the subracial stats that I'm willing to compromise on.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I'm going to be following the rules. And unless I use enlarge on a Tielfing, there is no way to make someone 10 ft tall and purple.

But since it doesn't matter why any race as any given ASI, then Tasha's rules can't break any lore or anything else. Because, in your own words "Huh. Here I thought mountain dwarves got a +2 to strength and hill dwarves got a +1 to wisdom because that's what the PHB told us they got. Also, that they're fantasy made up races and can be just about anything."

So, my point is you have been arguing for an arbitrary adherence to arbitrary rules that you don't even really care about. Id it doesn't matter why the Dwarves get their bonuses, then it doesn't matter if they are changed.

And I prefer the rules as they are written in the 5E PHB because to me they give me a better sense of different races and subraces being different and unique. For you, being 10 ft tall and purple is a bridge too far. For me, stat bonuses wherever you want is a step in the wrong direction.