D&D 5E (2014) Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Azzy]

I think we should take a note from tradition and remove ASIs entirely. After all OD&D and the entire run of "Basic" D&D never had ASIs.

 

[Remathilis]

I hope 6e removes all racial stats from the game and instead up the point buy accordingly. (Rolled stats are on their own).

Ability score increases only from leveling.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

@Chaosmancer
I came here to say something similar. I think from a logic standpoint, you are spot on Chaos. The clarity of your post, and its succinct point could not have been said better. But the intent behind a rule change sometimes means the lines in the sand change position. I simply think this is one of those times.
Again, 5e was created. It is a success. My thoughts about the line fall in between the two: rules change to make things easier. They often change to give a certain group an advantage. And in this case, it will be the min/maxers that get an advantage. As has mostly been the case through D&D's evolution. And each time that happens, a little bit of lore gets lost. DM's that spent hundreds of hours, with hundreds of pages of notepads, and hundreds of play hours, creating a world, now feel that what they did might be ruined.
And yes, you can say, but DM's don't have to use the rule, or that, they can just find a new group, etc. But one: that isn't really true for all. And two, that doesn't dismiss the fact that their creation is slowly being strangled out of existence.

So I would just ask from you, to have a little sympathy and understanding for that side.

On a side note: That is one of the nice things about a new edition. It rewrites the rules. And when it does that, it is like an author ending a book series. Sure, they could continue with their series, or they can wrap it up, and start on a new one. So there is not as much of a feeling of loss compared to rewriting rules in the middle of an edition.

 

[Umbran]

I will let this go this one time. Next time, though...

Mod Note:

Threatening people with retribution may not be your best move here. Remember that next time, please.

 

[Remathilis]

[QUOTE="Scott Christian, post: 8115641, member: 6901101]
Again, 5e was created. It is a success. My thoughts about the line fall in between the two: rules change to make things easier. They often change to give a certain group an advantage. And in this case, it will be the min/maxers that get an advantage. As has mostly been the case through D&D's evolution. And each time that happens, a little bit of lore gets lost. DM's that spent hundreds of hours, with hundreds of pages of notepads, and hundreds of play hours, creating a world, now feel that what they did might be ruined.[/QUOTE]

While I empathize to a certain extent, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the D&D rules have evolved mid-edition.

OD&D got a supplement that removed the need for Chainmail from combat resolution. Basic changed in the jump from B/X to BECMI to accommodate 36 levels of play. Unearthed Arcana changed several elements of existing races classes, including making paladin a part of the new cavalier class. Players Options gave optional rules for damn near everything, including better balanced cleric domains and kits along with whole new psionics and martial arts rules. 3.5 rewrote damage reduction, whole classes, the skills list, and gnome favored class. 4e Essentials changed races and did extensive retooling of classes. Each of these changes had impact on the lore and the hundreds of words on DM notepads. This is just the next evolution. The Unearthed Arcana, Players Options, 3.5, or Essentials era change.

"Dread It, Run From It, Destiny Still Arrives" - Thanos

 

[Ristamar]

"Dread It, Run From It, Destiny Still Arrives" - Thanos

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

Bugbears are ambush and stealth fighters, so why strength? In fact, in the Monster Manual, they specifically have abilities tied to stealth tactics. That would seem to make Dexterity a rather big deal.

And why strength for Dragonborn? The only dragon class in the game is the sorcerer, and many dragonborn have big personalities more than they have big muscles?

Of course, I can likely make arguments for any ability score for any race, because again, when we tried digging down into "why do certain races have certain stats" the eventual answers I received were that it does not matter, they just do. And, when we try to talk about specific individuals not fitting the racial mold, well, just put a higher stat in it. Which ignores the fact that NPCs could also do that same thing. 14 is above average toughness. For an NPC that is big. In fact, if you apply racial mods to a dwarf Commoner, they only get a 12. So, is 12 enough of a score to represent dwarven toughness? All of my PCs tend to have at least a 12 in their Con. Is that enough for my Dwarf to be Dwarfy enough for people to think he is a dwarf?


And, while you may be willing to "compromise" on them, that does nothing for these races without sub-racial stats. In fact, I'd say that sub-races are the minority of examples by this point in the games history.


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

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.

It was late, so I likely didn't express myself well. Because you decided to drive it to absurdity and that frustrated me.

You are the one who said it did not matter why they have the bonuses they have. That was your argument. I responded to it, taking that to the logical conclusion. If it does not matter now why they have those stats, then it should not be giving you a better sense of them being unique and different, because there is no reason behind it.

You responded by saying that we could all play 10 ft tall purple people too.

Which takes the point you made, and drives it past a reasonable conclusion to throwing are hands up in the air and just going absurd.

There are rules for Tasha's coming out. That is what this discussion is about. You have been arguing against these rules because you feel they break something. But, when I try to dig into what it is that established the current rules, I am told there is nothing to find. This foundation you are defending is floating on empty air, according to your own point.

And, when I point that out, and say that if there is nothing supporting this foundation, then there is nothing that can be lost by moving that foundation, you throw a grenade at the argument and say that I am proposing that nothing matters any more.

If you didn't like your own argument. Maybe you shouldn't have made it. Because now, you are just arguing with yourself.

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

@Chaosmancer
I came here to say something similar. I think from a logic standpoint, you are spot on Chaos. The clarity of your post, and its succinct point could not have been said better. But the intent behind a rule change sometimes means the lines in the sand change position. I simply think this is one of those times.
Again, 5e was created. It is a success. My thoughts about the line fall in between the two: rules change to make things easier. They often change to give a certain group an advantage. And in this case, it will be the min/maxers that get an advantage. As has mostly been the case through D&D's evolution. And each time that happens, a little bit of lore gets lost. DM's that spent hundreds of hours, with hundreds of pages of notepads, and hundreds of play hours, creating a world, now feel that what they did might be ruined.
And yes, you can say, but DM's don't have to use the rule, or that, they can just find a new group, etc. But one: that isn't really true for all. And two, that doesn't dismiss the fact that their creation is slowly being strangled out of existence.

So I would just ask from you, to have a little sympathy and understanding for that side.

On a side note: That is one of the nice things about a new edition. It rewrites the rules. And when it does that, it is like an author ending a book series. Sure, they could continue with their series, or they can wrap it up, and start on a new one. So there is not as much of a feeling of loss compared to rewriting rules in the middle of an edition.

I would have sympathy and understanding if I felt that that was true even in the slightest sense.

Min/Maxers are not getting an advantage here. If we assume a Min/Maxer does not care about lore and story, then they have gained almost nothing from this change.

People are worried about +2 INT Mountain Dwarves with armor, this is somehow a "big deal" that min/maxers will now use.... But Githyanki with their +1 INT gave you medium armor as well, so the game already allows a 16 INT wizard with Medium armor. Hobgoblins were right behind, with 16 INT, Light armor, and a +2 Con in addition to an ability that allowed them to "save face" and get a sizable bonus to concentration saves.

I have never seen nor heard of a Githyanki Wizard. No guide I have ever read has held them up as the best choice for Wizards.

So, the most common Min/Max complaint I've seen in these discussions (armored wizards) already exists, and seems to not be considered worth much discussion in wizard optimization.

Maybe, what? Yuan-Ti fighters for magic resistant fighters?

Satyrs from Theros already allow for Dex Fighters (often considered very powerful due to X-bow expert Sharpshooter builds) who are magic resistant.


So, I have yet to see a single proposed mechanical benefit to this that was not possible some other way, if one did not care about lore and story.

So, Min/Maxers aren't really salivating over this. So, let us look to claim to, that this is going to cause a loss of lore, and "strangle" DMs created worlds.

How?

Legitimately, how? Because as Crawford points out, and I discovered a while back when debating with Max, the NPC statistics? Adding racial modifiers to those are optional. That Commer with 10's down the line is a legit dwarven commoner. And, even if you choose to add them, like I said above, that only gets you to a 12.

A twelve con is not impressive in the game. I have rarely seen anyone, except the rare rogue, with less than a 12 in con. Regardless of race.

And, when building a world, even with Tasha's rules in place, you can still say that Dwarves tend to be tougher than humans. If we assume that these Tasha rules are applied to NPCs, we do not have to assume that they are applied evenly. Maybe most dwarves, in their culture of hard drinking, hard work, and valuing endurance do tend to have higher con scores. Instead of trying to represent that with a +2 con to every dwarf, it is equally viable to represent that in world-building by saying that 75% of dwarves have higher con than the average of 10.

And, what ends up potentially happening, is you look at those NPC blocks, and you alter them. Maybe your dwarf is a stereotypical dwarf. Maybe they aren't. But also, we can look at a secondary part of this.

Sure, commoners have 10's across the board. But Guards tend to have higher Strength, Dexterity and Constitutions than commoners. This could be a for a few different reasons. Maybe training increased their stats. Maybe only those who are slightly more physically fit can become guards, but now we can pull up some specific questions. Gnomes from Eberrons country of Zilargo love to debate and scheme. Now, maybe I feel like a Gnomish Zil Guard should get those bonuses to Intelligence and Dexterity, but maybe I decide that Zil Guards actually should get a bigger bonus to Wisdom, to spot trouble and lies. So, I can bump their wisdom instead of their Dexterity. After all, as a Guard statblock, they are already better than average Dex, no real need to push that even higher, is there?


And what I'm doing here? What I'm describing? I could already do as a DM. I have 100% complete control over every single NPC statblock in the game. I can decided that all elves get a bonus to whatever stats I feel like.

All Tasha's does, is allow a player to say, "Hey, my specific individual elf has been cloistered in the library, learning oratory skills, so instead of Dex and Intelligence, I want Wisdom and Charisma, because as a Cleric of Labelas Enoreth, I have spent my time councilling and guiding the families of the grieving and dying, and I feel like those stats more accurately represent who my character is."

This doesn't change the world, by suddenly making all elves based on Wisdom and Charisma, and in fact, I would argue that a player who looks at the races and thinks "well, if I could have any score, I could play a cleric of this race and still get wisdom. What are the beliefs of these people anyways" is not strangling your world, but helping to explore and maybe even create it.


Maybe early in the games history, Elves needed to be unique from humans by having a +2 Dexterity. But now? Elven life cycles, myths, cultures, laws, beliefs, attitudes, ect ect ect have been so much potential information, that they can stand on their own. We don't need +2 Dex to tell us about elves, we can just read up on elves. And, when this focus on the lore and history of a race shows lack of depth, maybe instead of passing them by, players will take the opportunity to get invested.

I remember early on in this discussion, in another thread, someone posted about their player who only plays dwarves, but if they could just convince them to play a bard, then they would try out a different race. But, with this, that player would just play a Dwarven Bard. And I say to that, AWESOME. Who could better represent what a dwarven bard would act like, than a person deeply invested in the dwarven mythos and concept?


I don't understand why people think that these rules are going to make races less special. Maybe it is just me. I've never looked at an Orc and thought "+2 Strength, how interesting." Being strong doesn't tell me anything about them. It doesn't define them as any different than anyone else with a 12 strength. For the differences that I can build characters and stories around, I need to look deeper.

 

[Oofta]

It was late, so I likely didn't express myself well. Because you decided to drive it to absurdity and that frustrated me.

You are the one who said it did not matter why they have the bonuses they have. That was your argument. I responded to it, taking that to the logical conclusion. If it does not matter now why they have those stats, then it should not be giving you a better sense of them being unique and different, because there is no reason behind it.

You responded by saying that we could all play 10 ft tall purple people too.

Which takes the point you made, and drives it past a reasonable conclusion to throwing are hands up in the air and just going absurd.

There are rules for Tasha's coming out. That is what this discussion is about. You have been arguing against these rules because you feel they break something. But, when I try to dig into what it is that established the current rules, I am told there is nothing to find. This foundation you are defending is floating on empty air, according to your own point.

And, when I point that out, and say that if there is nothing supporting this foundation, then there is nothing that can be lost by moving that foundation, you throw a grenade at the argument and say that I am proposing that nothing matters any more.

If you didn't like your own argument. Maybe you shouldn't have made it. Because now, you are just arguing with yourself.

Hence my use of the words "bridge too far" vs "a step in the wrong direction". Obviously being 10 ft tall and purple is extreme. The point is not.

We each have visions of what it means to be a mountain dwarf. For me that includes being a bit hardier and stronger in general than your average human. For you it doesn't. I think ability score modifiers are one of the handful of things that distinguish one race and sub-race from another; a difference that is magnified by typical player choice of race and class combinations.

I think the game loses more than it gains from this change.

As for the rest, typical twisting of my words into knots to make them into something they're not. Have a good one.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, I have yet to see a single proposed mechanical benefit to this that was not possible some other way, if one did not care about lore and story.

So, Min/Maxers aren't really salivating over this. So, let us look to claim to, that this is going to cause a loss of lore, and "strangle" DMs created worlds.

How?

Two things: rules are changed to make things easier. That is exactly what I said. When things become easier, mechanics become easier to exploit. ie. Min/maxers. Two - I have never equated min/maxers to not caring about story or lore. I just see them bending lore in order achieve their build; which is almost inevitably, a combination of things that when added, make them stronger than what they could achieve with a prior build.
A DM's world is built around the exceptional, not the common. Think of Thanksgiving dinner. The common is like the silverware, plates, bowls, tablecloth, etc. on a dinner table. The exceptional is the turkey, gravy, cranberries, etc. The exceptional are also the PC's. And what they build sits on that table. So when a build is made of sushi, and placed on the table. Yeah, it is good. But then someone else brings kangaroo steaks. Which are good. And another brings crab legs. Which are good. But now the common stuff seems out of place (at least to the DM) because they wanted Thanksgiving dinner.

Legitimately, how? Because as Crawford points out, and I discovered a while back when debating with Max, the NPC statistics? Adding racial modifiers to those are optional. That Commer with 10's down the line is a legit dwarven commoner. And, even if you choose to add them, like I said above, that only gets you to a 12.

A twelve con is not impressive in the game. I have rarely seen anyone, except the rare rogue, with less than a 12 in con. Regardless of race.

And, when building a world, even with Tasha's rules in place, you can still say that Dwarves tend to be tougher than humans. If we assume that these Tasha rules are applied to NPCs, we do not have to assume that they are applied evenly. Maybe most dwarves, in their culture of hard drinking, hard work, and valuing endurance do tend to have higher con scores. Instead of trying to represent that with a +2 con to every dwarf, it is equally viable to represent that in world-building by saying that 75% of dwarves have higher con than the average of 10.

And, what ends up potentially happening, is you look at those NPC blocks, and you alter them. Maybe your dwarf is a stereotypical dwarf. Maybe they aren't. But also, we can look at a secondary part of this.

Sure, commoners have 10's across the board. But Guards tend to have higher Strength, Dexterity and Constitutions than commoners. This could be a for a few different reasons. Maybe training increased their stats. Maybe only those who are slightly more physically fit can become guards, but now we can pull up some specific questions. Gnomes from Eberrons country of Zilargo love to debate and scheme. Now, maybe I feel like a Gnomish Zil Guard should get those bonuses to Intelligence and Dexterity, but maybe I decide that Zil Guards actually should get a bigger bonus to Wisdom, to spot trouble and lies. So, I can bump their wisdom instead of their Dexterity. After all, as a Guard statblock, they are already better than average Dex, no real need to push that even higher, is there?


And what I'm doing here? What I'm describing? I could already do as a DM. I have 100% complete control over every single NPC statblock in the game. I can decided that all elves get a bonus to whatever stats I feel like.

A DM can do anything. Correct. But it doesn't make it right. There is a logic, even in a fantasy world. When it is broken, via player or DM or lore or mechanics, it interrupts the process to enjoy the game for some. There are many examples of this: the infusion of playable races, the negation of weight when discussing strength, the rules lawyer that insists a single word means exactly what they think it means, and a DM that sets encounters up that always specifically negate the heroes' strengths (example: most bad guys can see invisibility or have damage resistance against the hero's usual damage type.)
So yes, a DM can do it. But, when the Thanksgiving's table begins to get crowded by the exceptional, and it doesn't match, it does not matter what the DM changes. The Thanksgiving table with its silly sage gravy boat and sausage-apple stuffing pan is changed because the palate alters what it tastes based on the previous flavor in its mouth. And if it sushi, the stuffing might not go over so well.

All Tasha's does, is allow a player to say, "Hey, my specific individual elf has been cloistered in the library, learning oratory skills, so instead of Dex and Intelligence, I want Wisdom and Charisma, because as a Cleric of Labelas Enoreth, I have spent my time councilling and guiding the families of the grieving and dying, and I feel like those stats more accurately represent who my character is."

That is the point many have made. Let's make it easier for this elf to have this. But, and here is what the other side keeps saying: You can have your elf learn oratory skills. They can be intelligent wise. You can do it right from the start. You can point buy them a 15 intelligence wisdom. That is way above the average. You can do this in the rules as they are written in the PHB. No need to change anything.

But wait... what do I hear? The war horn of someone...
who...
wants...
a...
16 to start with.

See. It goes both ways, which is why I am not taking a side. I am simply answering your question. You can have exactly what you ask for, a high score in any attribute. But, the average PC's chosen race is set up with strengths. One that says: when a PC chooses this race, the race is +X better than the other races.

Now if you do not like that, that is okay. You can just have the DM create a house rule that negates this and change the point buy to where players can reach 16 or 18 or 20.

But for some reason that doesn't sit as well. Not with me. Not with you (I am guessing). Not with a lot of people.

I don't understand why people think that these rules are going to make races less special. Maybe it is just me. I've never looked at an Orc and thought "+2 Strength, how interesting." Being strong doesn't tell me anything about them. It doesn't define them as any different than anyone else with a 12 strength. For the differences that I can build characters and stories around, I need to look deeper.

I never said they would make a race less special. I said it will decrease the amount of rare race/class combinations because it removes the negative for the players that must have a "strong" character build.

 

[Scott Christian]

OD&D got a supplement that removed the need for Chainmail from combat resolution. Basic changed in the jump from B/X to BECMI to accommodate 36 levels of play. Unearthed Arcana changed several elements of existing races classes, including making paladin a part of the new cavalier class. Players Options gave optional rules for damn near everything, including better balanced cleric domains and kits along with whole new psionics and martial arts rules. 3.5 rewrote damage reduction, whole classes, the skills list, and gnome favored class. 4e Essentials changed races and did extensive retooling of classes. Each of these changes had impact on the lore and the hundreds of words on DM notepads. This is just the next evolution. The Unearthed Arcana, Players Options, 3.5, or Essentials era change.

All true. And those changes were made to make things easier for players to build what they wanted and be better.

Picture a Thanksgiving table...

Never mind.