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

[Aldarc]

Ho boy...

And you replied

To which I said

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.

Except humans do have type: human. IMHO playing against type isn't about playing against numbers, but about setting, culture, and normative attitudes. An elf in Eberron with the same attributes can "play against type" just as easily as a human depending upon their background culture, much as the same as with any human.

 

[Helldritch]

Except humans do have type: human. IMHO playing against type isn't about playing against numbers, but about setting, culture, and normative attitudes. An elf in Eberron with the same attributes can "play against type" just as easily as a human depending upon their background culture, much as the same as with any human.

That is an against culture. Not type. This is DM fiat with no mechanical support. Where as a the halfling barb has mechanical support to play against type. So nope. You're point do not stand up to close scrutiny. It is almost a strawman.
We could even argue that two knights of Solamnia can play against type because of three orders... yet, no mechanics would support that either. Playing against type requires mechanical incentive (or restriction whatever you want to call it). Otherwise, it is just a fun RP.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree with you. And at the end of my quote I did say I didn't know what the effect would be in the long term. The short term, probably happier.

But, there is something to the pizza analogy. Do you notice pizza places put combinations that not everyone thinks of? They are pointing out combos that people might not consider. That is how Hawaiian pizza started. Now it is popular. And a pizza place also puts those prebuilts on there to make money. They have more ingredients than most people care for.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

This is a bit unfair. Because in reality, many consumers have no idea what they want. This has been shown over and over and over. As counterintuitive as it sounds, the people consuming generally have no idea what or how much to consume to make them happiest. (This is me every time I eat two more slices of pizza than I should. )
And no one is arguing against the choices offered in the PHB. I believe almost everyone here thought it was well done; new yet traditional, balanced yet able to be optimized, and fluid yet detailed. They are debating why all race/class combinations have to start with a 16?

 

[Remathilis]

This is a bit unfair. Because in reality, many consumers have no idea what they want. This has been shown over and over and over. As counterintuitive as it sounds, the people consuming generally have no idea what or how much to consume to make them happiest. (This is me every time I eat two more slices of pizza than I should. )
And no one is arguing against the choices offered in the PHB. I believe almost everyone here thought it was well done; new yet traditional, balanced yet able to be optimized, and fluid yet detailed. They are debating why all race/class combinations have to start with a 16?

Let's say having a 16 starting makes me happy. However, I want to play a race that doesn't have ability bumps to provide that. I had two options:

• Get a 16, but play a race I don't want to play.
• Play the race I want, but start out with less than a 16.

To some, this is a fair trade off; you have to choose one or the other. But either way, I am in net not happy because I had to compromise something about my character.

But let's just say now I have the third choice to assign my scores. I get both my race and a 16. I am happy. What are the downsides?

Am I more powerful than either of the two options above? I don't think so, outside of some niche corner case somewhere.

Am I ruining the race for others? No, since others can use the original mods without change.

Like customizing my pizza, I can choose to make mine pepperoni, bacon, mushrooms and olives instead of choosing from either meat lovers or vegetarian.

The only people who are unhappy about this are the ones who feel I should be forced to compromise one or the other of my happiness for reasons. The ones who only want you to pick off the prebuilt menu and not be able to customize my pizza toppings.

Life is too short to compromise on pizza toppings and D&D.

 

[Azzy]

Playing against type requires mechanical incentive (or restriction whatever you want to call it).

No, no it doesn't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Am I ruining the race for others? No, since others can use the original mods without change.

Potentially you are. Some people might feel strongly about the niches of the races and would feel annoyed if another race can just match their niche. Like if one person in your group chose to play an half-orc to be the big green strong guy they might feel miffed that their niche is violated if you make halfling that is just as strong as them.

 

[Remathilis]

Potentially you are. Some people might feel strongly about the niches of the races and would feel annoyed if another race can just match their niche. Like if one person in your group chose to play an half-orc to be the big green strong guy they might feel miffed that their niche is violated if you make halfling that is just as strong as them.

But I haven't taken away the option from them, they are just mad I now have the option as well.

If I order a pizza with pepperoni, bacon and ham, I haven't ruined the meat lovers pizza for everyone else. The store isn't going to say, "welp, guess we don't need the meat lovers anymore" and take it of the market. And if you're mad that my pizza has the audacity to have pepperoni, bacon and ham without having sausage and hamburger, I'd kindly tell you to mind your own business.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But I haven't taken away the option from them, they are just mad I now have the option as well.

If I order a pizza with pepperoni, bacon and ham, I haven't ruined the meat lovers pizza for everyone else. The store isn't going to say, "welp, guess we don't need the meat lovers anymore" and take it of the market. And if you're mad that my pizza has the audacity to have pepperoni, bacon and ham without having sausage and hamburger, I'd kindly tell you to mind your own business.

Yes, almost like pizza orders and game design operated somewhat differently... Niche protection is a thing one needs to think in game design, less so with pizzas.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Let's say having a 16 starting makes me happy. However, I want to play a race that doesn't have ability bumps to provide that. I had two options:

• Get a 16, but play a race I don't want to play.
• Play the race I want, but start out with less than a 16.

To some, this is a fair trade off; you have to choose one or the other. But either way, I am in net not happy because I had to compromise something about my character.

But let's just say now I have the third choice to assign my scores. I get both my race and a 16. I am happy. What are the downsides?

Am I more powerful than either of the two options above? I don't think so, outside of some niche corner case somewhere.

Am I ruining the race for others? No, since others can use the original mods without change.

Like customizing my pizza, I can choose to make mine pepperoni, bacon, mushrooms and olives instead of choosing from either meat lovers or vegetarian.

The only people who are unhappy about this are the ones who feel I should be forced to compromise one or the other of my happiness for reasons. The ones who only want you to pick off the prebuilt menu and not be able to customize my pizza toppings.

Life is too short to compromise on pizza toppings and D&D.

I want my cleric to have multi attack. I just like the imagery. It does not shaft the fighter; he keeps it. And I don’t have to compromise.

that is more extreme but the point is yes, some constraints are there for a purpose and sometimes what we prefer may butt up against a constraint. But it also helps define things too. If I give multiattack to a life cleric, where does the war domain cleric sit?

it’s just all subtle preference honestly. The argument is not about promoting fun vs. constraint.

I would also say it would be unusual for me to really really think firbolgs are cool right up until I see they do not get a dex bonus. Firbolg are wise “in tune” beings who are big...and stronger than the average 5’9” elf or whatever.

as I think about it, we are really advocating for what might amount to a +1 weapon or something. Neither preference for or against is going to break the game but for those less inclined to go with the new option, the changes may change the archetypes over time.

I am less entrenched than I was in that direction (if the typical creature is still listed as having that inclination).

but that is the issue. No one is wanting to wreck someone else’s fun (I would assume). It is as silly to assume one direction as another (e.g. people that want floating bonuses are hoping to rain on the traditionalist’s parade).

my concern is more about “what’s next?” At this point. When will it be taboo to say halfling are generally quick or good at thieving? I mean my Lord, we would not want to do that and make people believe certain real world humans are more inclined to stealing! Or when will it be taboo to say orcs tend to be strong because we are afraid we are perpetuating some weird historical ideas about eugenics?

focus on good design. I see some hits and misses with Tasha’s. Oh well. The die is cast.