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

[Helldritch]

Honestly, Stonecunning is of questionable usefulness in its current form and doing away with it in favor of simply a proficiency in the History skill might be better anyway.

Say that to my dwarves. They love their stone cutting. An ability is as relevant as the DM wishes it to be. When you have a dwarven player (or whatever race and class) it is your duty as a DM to make sure that all abilities come to the fore once in a while. If not, then you're missing out on the usefulness of the skill.

And I have never really gotten that whole "Elves don't sleep" thing. I never really see it highlighted much aside from with power gamers and otherwise most D&D games hardly even really incorporate it in any real way. You generally still have to get an inn room and effectively sleep for 8 hours regardless. If we were to get rid of it, I don't think it would be missed. Same with the free use of longswords and bows. It wasn't a thing in 4th, it didn't matter in 3rd as if you were playing a character who had an attack bonus high enough to hit with the thing then you already got martial weapons proficiency and in 5th edition it is a Str weapon and Elves are a Dex race-- so, again, its not really worth using. Now a long bow would obviously be useful, but... yeah, I just don't see a longbow being a necessary accessory when I imagine an Elven Wizard or Warlock-- really only Elven Rangers or Fighters.

If you could only come to my games. Elves are the ultimate watchmen. 4 hours meditation and then the 4 hours of light watch. Making it often more than two characters on watch. Very powerful to deter random encounter at night. As for the other abilities, see the above.

The Dragonborn Breath Attack ought to be balanced against having a typical damaging cantrip if you can use it all the time or as a damaging 1st level spell once per long rest. Either way, it is an effect that could be duplicated with a dip into the Sorcerer class.

This breath is a good finisher for low level critters and hirelings. Again, a good DM will ensure that this ability will be usefull once in a while.

The only things that one might want to keep that I think that maybe one wants to keep as something classes can't just easily replicate would be maybe if Dwarfs still have advantage/resistance to Poison and Elves to Enchantments and Tieflings to Fire... But then I could easily imagine a feat being able to provide a similar resistance to a single non-physical damage type or a single school of spells.

I fail to see your point in here? Do you want to create such feats?

Generally I feel as though any ability that is tied to the race should be something that one can gain through the right combination of 1st level classes and feat choices. At least the mechanical part of it should be obtainable even if the lore behind how those mechanics work for you is a little different.

Nope. Racial abilities are just that. Racial abilities. You little devil of min/maxer...

 

[Helldritch]

I'm not sure why or how this requires racial modifiers and abilities to perform. For example, are in-game humans not able to play against geo-cultural biases from being from another country from other in-game humans because their racial abilities are the same?

GOOD! You found the ultimate human ability in D&D. They are highly adaptable! This is exactly their strength.

 

[Remathilis]

In psychology, often more choices equates to less satisfaction. This is true for many, and not just anxiety prone consumers. A restaurant with a great fixed menu can make guests equally happy as something like Cheesecake Factory that has a 12 page menu. (I keep going back to food analogies, ugh! )

The Paradox of Choice only goes so far though. To keep on the food analogy, many pizza places offer several prebuilt options (classic pepperoni, supreme, veggie, meat lovers, hawaiian, etc) BUT ALSO offer the ability to customize or even build your own with different toppings, sauces and crusts. If the Paradox was always true, more people would get prebuilt options rather than make your own, but make your own is wildly considered more popular than prebuilt. Some people want a simple choice from the prebuilt, some want the options to fit thier unique tastes.

 

[Aldarc]

GOOD! You found the ultimate human ability in D&D. They are highly adaptable! This is exactly their strength.

You are either my missing point or sidestepping it. We could change my example to dwarves, elves, or any other non-human ancestry, and my point would still be the same here.

 

[Oofta]

Hey, why not? But no one is arguing in favor of getting rid of rules. The argument is that racial categories are problematic and limit player choice. If limiting player choice is bad, then it’s logical to get rid of any category that does.

That's assuming that limiting player choice is a bad thing. There's such a thing as the paradox of choice - too many options and and people are confused and less satisfied with the final result.

I would assume that most people that play D&D are casual players, especially when it comes to character builds. Make a couple of choices, pick between some simple options and go have fun playing with the group. Besides don't most people fit a certain archetype when it comes to their career? I'm a computer programmer, not a nuclear scientist pro football player astronaut who dabbles in artificial intelligence and bio-engineering in my spare time.

 

[Helldritch]

You are either my missing point or sidestepping it. We could change my example to dwarves, elves, or any other non-human ancestry, and my point would still be the same here.

I am doing neither of these and
No it would not do. High Elves can play against type by going wisdom, charisma or strength based classes. An Half-Orc can play against type by going intelligence, wisdom or charisma based classes. The same is true for any races save the humans (and the Half-elf as this one can get a 16 anywhere).

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

That's assuming that limiting player choice is a bad thing. There's such a thing as the paradox of choice - too many options and and people are confused and less satisfied with the final result.

I agree but I feel that D&D may be moving in a different direction.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That's assuming that limiting player choice is a bad thing. There's such a thing as the paradox of choice - too many options and and people are confused and less satisfied with the final result.

I would assume that most people that play D&D are casual players, especially when it comes to character builds. Make a couple of choices, pick between some simple options and go have fun playing with the group. Besides don't most people fit a certain archetype when it comes to their career? I'm a computer programmer, not a nuclear scientist pro football player astronaut who dabbles in artificial intelligence and bio-engineering in my spare time.

There is more to constraint than people realize. The reason people get excited about combos and loopholes is because of some constraints!

Many things are exciting because they are found within some boundaries and may have been hard to identify at first. There is a tension between choices and boundaries. That is what makes this a game instead of merely ‘let’s pretend.’

I only say this to point out the fact that unfettered player choice is not necessarily ideal. If people say ‘you mean you don’t think choice is good?!’ My response is that of course it is: within some boundaries.

In a way, boundaries are what separates one game from another. Likewise assumptions are what we hang our shared fiction on.

the selective changes our world makes to assumptions and boundaries are what makes a creation novel and unique, much as playing against type does for some characters.

no one argues for a game so bogged down by boundaries that it’s not creative. No one is arguing for story hour. But the dial to set how far one way we go is set to different number by different people.

in my opinion you have to be the most careful with constraints. It is what makes this game ‘D&D’ with classes and races.

you can knock some of those things down but I think that is best done in unique campaign settings which are interesting because they deviate from baseline.

as stated earlier, you have to have some archetypes in order to show uniqueness. As I said earlier, if you want to color outside of the lines, you first have to have lines.

 

[seebs]

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.

I don't think there's any risk of us not having archetypes or stereotypes to break out of, but I would be fine with the system not mechanically encouraging people to embrace them. I would also be good with getting away from the notion that stereotypes are based on real and innate qualities of groups of people.

 

[Maxperson]

So are kobolds.

Maybe, just maybe, size matters. And wait for it, they are NOT born of dragons like Dragonborn, rather they are reptilian and worship dragons.

So, "despite their build" means to you that their build is more important? Not the fact that, even with their build, they are incredibly dexterous and stealthy?

They get a +1 to dex to represent that.

So, if I dug back through these posts I wouldn't find both Oofta and Helldritch lamenting the fact that with Tasha's all races would be reduced to "humans in rubber masks/suits"?

[/QUOTE]
Context matters. The context of those posts were stat modifiers, not the entire race.

And, you are turning this around, but ignoring what I was saying. If you are fine with "this group of races gets a +2
strength and floating +2" and "this group of races gets a +2 Dex and a floating +2" (which by the way, this would likely cover the majority of races between those two) and think that those races can maintain their unique identities... then you should also agree that those races being able to assign their scores as desired will let them keep their unique identities. Which yes, people on "your side" have argued will not be the case.

Again, it's called a compromise and not one I would use in my game.

But if six races having a +2 Strength because they are big can stay unique, then the idea that needing unique stat arrays to hold their identity (once again) is false.

Incorrect, and also another Strawman of our position. We are arguing that the race determines the stat bonus. Big = strong is fine as a RACIAL bonus. Nobody is claiming only one race can have a bonus in any particular stat.