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

[seebs]

I think the current ability score system is a decent way to reinforce archetypes.

That seems like a good argument against it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So basically all of that to say "My arguments are far superior to yours. I'm right, you've proven nothing, neener neener".

There's nothing to "prove" here. I think the current ability score system is a decent way to reinforce archetypes. Most people don't care about lore, they base their concept of what a race is on imagery and what they see other people play. Yes, gnomes are more likely to be wizards than barbarians. That's part of their archetype, part of their easily identifiable role in the game. That's the point.

On the other hand a gnome could make a fine strength based PC because a 95% of the time it's not going to make a difference. It's not a hard concept, the fact that you refuse to even acknowledge that someone else's opinion might be valid ... well have a good one.

It is so hard to talk to you when every post of your starts with you accusing me and attacking me. If you think my posts are so terrible then just report me to the mods and get it over with.

And, I do think your opinion is valid, but you are arguing for a book to not be published because of personal preference. You are arguing that the publication of this book will harm the game. And that requires evidence. If you just don't like it because you don't like it, that's fine. But if you want to argue that the inclusion of these rules actively is harmful for the game, you need to have some evidence.

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

I would never use the word deceive.

You stated you want a 16. That doesn't mean the others that want this book want a 16. I agree.

But if they want to create lore, by making odd race/class combinations. Yet the only way to increase players using those combinations is by giving someone a 16 in the beginning, then that is what the essence of the argument is still about.

It is the same for the other side. They think the PHB does a good job at reinforcing race/class combinations, and thus, keeping intact the lore as it is at present. It does this by making some race/class combinations less effective at lower levels at their primary "schtick." (They may be better at other things, but never really combat.)

All I am saying is the essence of this debate for the side that wants the change is the 16. I could say the essence of the debate on the other side is the 15. The rest is speculation on the effects that this 16 will have. We know the effects of the 15 - it keeps many players from exploring race/class combinations that aren't optimal.

I have not ascertained a truth. But I do know that rule changes are often made because they want to make things easier. And min/maxers, optimizers and players that like immediate gratification are always happier with easier. It gives them the possibilities they wanted. But it comes at a cost. For some, the easier route is a lot less fun. Much like the player at your table that didn't have fun because they had a 15 instead of a 16 in wisdom at the start of the game. The reverse can be true. (Oofta and others have given you a myriad of reasons to explain this.)

So if you want to speculate on the effects that having a 16 for all race/class combinations will have. I am happy to read them. But if you want to continue to debate that the argument is more than just about having a 16, then you are right, I have a truth. I know that anyone can make any character with a score that is 95% equal to any other character. And I also know that is not equal enough for some.

A lot of your post is very reasonable, and I appreciate it, but I wanted to zoom in on the bolded part.

Min/maxers
Optimizers
"players that like immediate gratification"

How about... casual players? They like things easier.
Player's that are new? They like things easier.
Beer and pretzel players? They oscillate, but I think they'd enjoy some easier games.
Players who are single parents?


I mean, a lot of people might like easier options in the game without being one of those three groups. Especially since there is a lot of negative baggage associated with those groups.

And, like you said, we know the effects of a max of 15 for those combos. Fewer people play them. And the effects of a 16? Well, more people will play them, that is a guarantee. Everything else is speculation, and that speculation is tending towards hyperbolic at times. But, you seem to want to simplify this discussion, so lets narrow focus down a bit to a question.

Let us assume that the "16" argument increases players who are happier with their builds. How bad for the "lore" of the gameworld does the rule have to be to outweigh player satisfaction? Because we know this rule will increase player satisfaction, and we know it is optional, so people to whom this road would make the game less fun can choose to keep taking the well-established path, so how bad of an effect does the rule have to have on other aspects of the game to outweigh those clear and obvious benefits?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Although I rather like D&D’s approach of character creation by picking from a couple of options (race, class, background), I have to admit that those arguing for getting rid of racial builds have a point.
I wonder, however, how long it will take for people to realize that classes are as problematic as races. It seems to me that we’re on the verge of realizing that it would be simpler, more elegant and more satisfying to play D&D without races, classes or levels.

 

[Oofta]

Although I rather like D&D’s approach of character creation by picking from a couple of options (race, class, background), I have to admit that those arguing for getting rid of racial builds have a point.
I wonder, however, how long it will take for people to realize that classes are as problematic as races. It seems to me that we’re on the verge of realizing that it would be simpler, more elegant and more satisfying to play D&D without races, classes or levels.

But that's been tried with various games, yet D&D remains the 800 pound gorilla. Some of that is name recognition, but if that's all it was then even if D&D was the biggest it doesn't seem like it would be the biggest by such a wide margin.

Some video games do the "build your own", but even then I still find myself building toward certain types. Trying to be everything rarely works. Besides, with multiclassing, feats and backgrounds, we already have a decent amount of flexibility. But I dunno. Maybe someone smarter than me could come up with a better design. I just wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Oofta]

It is so hard to talk to you when every post of your starts with you accusing me and attacking me. If you think my posts are so terrible then just report me to the mods and get it over with.

And, I do think your opinion is valid, but you are arguing for a book to not be published because of personal preference. You are arguing that the publication of this book will harm the game. And that requires evidence. If you just don't like it because you don't like it, that's fine. But if you want to argue that the inclusion of these rules actively is harmful for the game, you need to have some evidence.

First, I did let real world frustration affect my post. Sorry.

But this whole discussion is opinion ... there is no "evidence" to be had on either side. We aren't arguing concrete facts, just opinions and preferences. Of course you'll just dismiss anything I say as "not proof" because I disagree with you. Then again, you have no evidence either so there's no point.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But that's been tried with various games, yet D&D remains the 800 pound gorilla. Some of that is name recognition, but if that's all it was then even if D&D was the biggest it doesn't seem like it would be the biggest by such a wide margin.

True. But once races fall out of fashion, it seems inevitable that people will realize that they don’t need classes either. The avalanche has started, it is, as a wise man once said, too late for the pebbles to vote.

 

[Oofta]

That seems like a good argument against it.

I think easily recognized concepts and archetypes are part of what D&D what it is. Dwarves have never been associated with arcane magic unless it's crafting, elves have pretty much always been associated with arcane magic, bows and light weapons. Dwarves are tanks, elves are fighter jets.

On the other hand there's virtually nothing preventing you from having a mountain dwarf wizard. At lower levels your spells will be just as effective 95% of the time and you'll be one of the few wizards walking around with a decent AC without wasting a spell slot for mage armor (if you even have that up). Odds are you'll have more HP as well. So instead of being a glass cannon you'll be a ever-so-slightly less powerful armored cannon.

Besides, playing against type, challenging preconceived ideas of what certain people can or cannot be is being taken away by this new rule. You can't challenge a bias if there is no bias, you can't break out of an archetype if there is not one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There was earlier lengthy discussions about dwarven subraces that I didn't bother reading properly, but that reminded me about my dislike of subraces. Different species having different bonuses seems perfectly fine to me different cultures having them seems way too close to real world racist assumptions. And whilst I strongly agree that having clear archetypes is one of the greatest strengths of D&D, I feel the archetypes should be reasonably broad and somewhat flexible. So what I would do is get rid of subraces and make the races more flexible. Like I'm sure the generic fantasy dwarf archetype is recognisable to most people, but specific hill dwarves of gold dwarves are unlikely to resonate with a lot of people. So all dwarves would just get +2 to con and bunch of other rules, then they could choose +1 to some other stat and a minor feature. This could be any stat or it could be a limited list (perhaps dwarves can't have their +1 to dex and halflings cannot have it on strength for example.) I think something like this would allow more flexibility, still retain the appeal of archetypes and also avoid some unfortunate implications.

 

[Remathilis]

True. But once races fall out of fashion, it seems inevitable that people will realize that they don’t need classes either. The avalanche has started, it is, as a wise man once said, too late for the pebbles to vote.

The thing is, race/lineage isn't going away. Elves, dwarves and the like still have unique abilities that aren't ability mods or free proficiencies. Stonecunning, fey ancestry, breath weapons, infernal legacy all still exist and are parts of a characters build, just it's a less important part, especially since the choice point no longer "I could take x race and get abilities that synergize with my build, or y race which doesn't but fits my character" to "I want to play x race, how do I modify it to make it less redundant with my class?"

That said, I imagine that they could, in a hypothetical 6e, trim back the number of options down in terms of classes and races and opt for more customizable options. But I don't see them removing it utterly.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think easily recognized concepts and archetypes are part of what D&D what it is.

This right here. 95% of the fantasy books written. 95% of the fantasy heroes in video games. 95% of the fantasy characters on tv. D&D has had an influence on. Many Hollywood writer rooms have D&D books in them. And I feel certain more than a few authors and video game designers have D&D books on their bookshelves. It has seeped into the culture, and one cannot talk fantasy without talking D&D.

When you remove definable archetypes, you steadily lose identity.

You can change archetypes. You can change races and make the orcs smart and noble and wise. But, you need archetypes. It is the velcro that allows people to adhere their memories to.

Again, this right here.