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

[Oofta]

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.

If we were talking different groups of humans I'd agree. But we're talking different species which happen to have the same morphology.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

To avoid Paradox of Choice, why don't we go back to Basic's Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard along with the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Seven choices that cover the iconic roles. Why do we have dozens of classes, subclassess, races and such? Hell, why do we have dozens of D&D settings when we only need one. We don't need Theros, Eberron, Athas or even Faerun if we already have Oerth.

Listen, all I'm saying if limited choices make players happy, we'd all be having much more fun if we were using the Rules Cyclopedia rather than the PHB. Yet for some reason, people keep demanding new races, settings, and options. It's like they want to have less satisfaction. [emoji848]

 

[Aldarc]

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).

You say that you are doing neither of these things and then you follow it up by missing my point?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

To avoid Paradox of Choice, why don't we go back to Basic's Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard along with the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Seven choices that cover the iconic roles. Why do we have dozens of classes, subclassess, races and such? Hell, why do we have dozens of D&D settings when we only need one. We don't need Theros, Eberron, Athas or even Faerun if we already have Oerth.

Listen, all I'm saying if limited choices make players happy, we'd all be having much more fun if we were using the Rules Cyclopedia rather than the PHB. Yet for some reason, people keep demanding new races, settings, and options. It's like they want to have less satisfaction. [emoji848]

I definitely think that there already are too many races and classes and removing some would make the archetypes stronger.

 

[Remathilis]

I definitely think that there already are too many races and classes and removing some would make the archetypes stronger.

I restate my thesis; D&D would be best if it was using an updated Basic with 7 class/race options and one setting. The limited MM helps too.

 

[Oofta]

To avoid Paradox of Choice, why don't we go back to Basic's Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard along with the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Seven choices that cover the iconic roles. Why do we have dozens of classes, subclassess, races and such? Hell, why do we have dozens of D&D settings when we only need one. We don't need Theros, Eberron, Athas or even Faerun if we already have Oerth.

Listen, all I'm saying if limited choices make players happy, we'd all be having much more fun if we were using the Rules Cyclopedia rather than the PHB. Yet for some reason, people keep demanding new races, settings, and options. It's like they want to have less satisfaction. [emoji848]

I never said all choice was bad, just that too much choice can be bad. But there is a pretty fervent fanbase for old school gaming which according to one article I read is growing, so for at least some people it seems to have gone too far. I have no clue where the sweet spot is of course, I don't think anyone does.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

To avoid Paradox of Choice, why don't we go back to Basic's Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard along with the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling classes. Seven choices that cover the iconic roles. Why do we have dozens of classes, subclassess, races and such? Hell, why do we have dozens of D&D settings when we only need one. We don't need Theros, Eberron, Athas or even Faerun if we already have Oerth.

Listen, all I'm saying if limited choices make players happy, we'd all be having much more fun if we were using the Rules Cyclopedia rather than the PHB. Yet for some reason, people keep demanding new races, settings, and options. It's like they want to have less satisfaction. [emoji848]

If choice and constraint are numbers on a dial, going too far in any direction sucks. I don’t want basic D&D. I also don’t want a classless game.

this is really about where am individual would set the dial and most people I presume most are not wanting to set at 0 or ‘11.’

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I restate my thesis; D&D would be best if it was using an updated Basic with 7 class/race options and one setting. The limited MM helps too.

If you think so.

 

[Remathilis]

If choice and constraint are numbers on a dial, going too far in any direction sucks. I don’t want basic D&D. I also don’t want a classless game.

this is really about where am individual would set the dial and most people I presume most are not wanting to set at 0 or ‘11.’

I never said all choice was bad, just that too much choice can be bad. But there is a pretty fervent fanbase for old school gaming which according to one article I read is growing, so for at least some people it seems to have gone too far. I have no clue where the sweet spot is of course, I don't think anyone does.

Now you're getting closer.

D&D is a big tent. It needs to cover a lot of different people's opinions. Some want minimalist, some what maximum customization and some what something in the middle that isn't what the next guy wants. So if D&D wants to accommodate them all, they need to be big, broad, and all encompassing. It needs to (in print) be an 11 so that everyone can dial it back to what they want. Because what I want is different from what you want and the menu needs to be bloated so that we both can get it.

Paradox of Choice doesn't factor here unless you want one of your choices to be excluding others.

 

[Helldritch]

You say that you are doing neither of these things and then you follow it up by missing my point?

Ho boy...

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.

And you replied

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?

To which I said

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

So I'll be clearer then.
Humans can't play against type because they do not have any type. Period. The same could be argued with half-elves as they can start with a 16 in any chosen ability.
To play against type you need as Oofta said, racial modifiers. If you can't put a 16 in your primary stat, then you are playing against type because the class you have chosen will have bonuses that are not related to your class. Example: Dwarven wizard, Halfling or Gnome Barbarian, Tiefling Strength based Fighter and so on. It is because you don't have that Sweet 16 (All Hail Billy Idol) that you are playing against type. The race you choose might not even have racials abilities to support your class. They might complement well (or not) but they do not boost your class in a traditional way. That sir, is playing against type. Humans, as you said can't do that.

This is the beauty in playing such builds. You'll get there eventually, but not as fast as the one starting with a headstart.