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

[doctorbadwolf]

I am not going to chew all the work for you. Go out there in the forums. Look at so many posts/threads. One example is the Sorlock. You know as well as I that 1-3 level dip are and can be broken. Pretending the contrary, especially with all your experience on this forum and in specific thread talking about multiclassing in which you were, is... baffling?

I'm aware of those builds, sure. I don't agree at all that they are broken.

Nor are they necessarily going to arise from allowing multiclassing without tightly controlled rules. I've seen a couple Sorlocks in play, and I've played an Ancients Dex-Paladin/Fey Warlock Bladepact with Warlock spell slots and Shadowblade and at-will Mage Armor. In all cases, the character had just as much story to them, just as much roleplaying thought, and just as much drawbacks and hindrances, as anyone else at the table.

And none of them broke the game, just like no other build that people call cheesy or broken has actually broke the game, because only "player skill" and bad homebrew or house rules can really break 5e dnd.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I don't think that would happen. The convenience and thematics of bundled abilities and roles for wizards, clerics, fighters, ect is deeply ingrained and works very very well.

Sure, little bits here and there, but something like class alternative features is a fine solution to give multiple options at the appropriate levels.

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

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

No problem man, it happens.

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.

I would bring up the fact that there is more to evidence than being able to straight quote a book or show a mathematical proof, but I think I would rather end this discussion with this instead of drag it out more.

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

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.

Yes and no.

Yes, DnD had a massive influence on everything, especially the realms of Fantasy.

But, archetypes change and evolve. They must.

The archetypal "hero" has changed over the last 200 years, and the last twenty years, because Archetypes reflect the stories being told by the culture, and those stories change over time.

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

I agree with you. I was just lumping. I kind of picture people with limited time, like parents and beer and pretzel players to be immediate gratification. Again, I do not take umbrage at min/maxers or optimizers or immediate gratification players. I was just trying to show they are different than the long termers. But you are right, those other groups could (and should) have been included.

The first part has been debated. In this very thread there have been statements that the same old combos would get played and that very little would change. I don't know if it will. But I guess the question is how much?

That is a great question. I do not know the answer. But, I would say that this rule might decrease player satisfaction just as easily as it will increase it. I am not trying to argue just to argue. But hear me out:

• Make everyone get a 16. Some people's satisfaction decrease. People we're speaking to on this very board.
• It's optional, but that is a different debate. Because optional at one table does not mean optional at another. I feel as adults, we all know and understand this. I play with very mature people, yet if the DM didn't want this book in use, but two players really did, the DM would fold, even though it will decrease his satisfaction. Like many DM's he does this to be kind and accommodating. (And by the way, it might irk another player at the table as well.)
• 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! )

So will most players be happier. In the short term, I suppose. In the long term, I don't know. But that is the question that sits right next to yours.

Your second bullet point is the real sticky point. Because two players want it, two players don't, and both will have hard feelings about the ruling. There is no solution here, this is pure case by case, table by table,

And we simply can't change that.

As for the psych study, I am passingly familiar with it, but it should be acknowledged that this indicates a spectrum, because we also all know that a lack of choices decreases satisfaction. So, is this too many choices, or are we currently at too few?

Time will tell.

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

@Chaosmancer Easier for.

How about... casual players? They like things easier…. DM. Here take this archetype.
Player's that are new? They like things easier. DM. Here don’t worry about floating stat thingies. Elfs have a +2 to dex.

Beer and pretzel players? They oscillate, but I think they'd enjoy some easier games.. DM. HEY YOU got to do math. B&P (NOT AFTER 2 Beers.)
Players who are single parents? ME....WELL uM. I don’t have an answer to that because that response makes no bloody sense.

On Tuesdays I am DMing for new players. Some new to Adventure League. Some New to D&D and tabletop. Easier is the PHB and just copy the stats changes. Seeing eyes glass over when I start mentioning multiple options. Tasha sounds like it is there for the whiny power gamers who grip about doing one hit point less than best buddy who did a mechanical damage build.

It makes sense if you remember how much work raising a child is. They don't have the time to dedicate to their favorite game any more, so making it easier would be nice.

And, if you want to argue that the current version is easier... then to follow the original logic power gamers and min/maxers must love the game as is and not care about this harder set of rules. After all, the original point was that min/maxers and optimizers love it when the game gets easier.

Also, way to ruin any chance I was going to agree with you by calling me and my friends "whiny power gamers". Since all of us are excited for this book, that would make all of us like that. Which we are far far from.

But hey, why not just keep insulting the other side, it makes you look good after all.

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

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).

So a human from a rich noble family who takes a vow or poverty isn't subverting expectations?

A human born in a city of lawless thieves who is a moral paragon has no stereotype they are combating against?

A human from a demon cult worshipping a goddess (or vice versa) is not playing against type?


It is also good to know that my human can never play against type, in any way, shape or form. Saves me effort from being creative. Heck, sounds like I don't need to be creative with any race. Want to be a unique Tiefling? Play a fighter, don't need to do anything else, you are playing against type and have made an interesting character all ready

(this sarcasm brought to you by facepalming, the thing I've been doing a lot this thread)

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

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

Not born of dragons?

Volos entry is called "Kobolds: Little Dragons"

And their entry talks about how they believe they were created by Tiamat and that they are proud to be the blood-kin of dragons.

In fact, we also know that the wings of an Urd (a winged kobold) are seen as a gift from Tiamat (the Queen of Evil Dragons) and that their patron god Kurtulumak is seen as a servant of Tiamat. Who is traditionally served by, wait for it, Dragons.

But, sure, size is probably the real reason you did that. Big things strong, small things dexterous. Don't need to get complicated I suppose.

They get a +1 to dex to represent that.

Which your proposed rule takes away, ruling it unimportant?

The entire point was that by narrowing down races into a single stat mod, you are doing exactly what people have been accusing Tasha's of doing. What you yourself seemed unhappy with. Removing Nuance.

You have declared that it is more important that Bugbears are strong rather than being dexterous. But, I can and did make a consistent argument that it can be more important that they are dexterous. So, why is your rule to take away these precious identifiers of racial "identity" different than Tashas? Because you made six categories of sameness instead of one?

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

The context was that removing the stat modifiers would make the entire race homogenous with every other race, indistinguishable from human.

Other than that, I don't even know what you are trying to say by saying that they are about only the modifiers and not the entire race, when they said the "race" will be humans in rubber masks. Do you think they only meant the mechanical ability scores would be humans in rubber masks?

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.

But they were arguing that getting rid of the racial modifiers made everyone homogenous. So, if multiple races can have the same ability scores with no problem... which one's can't?

Because if everyone being able to choose to have any score they prefer is bad, but some of the races having the same scores is okay... what are the acceptable groups? Who is similar enough that they are allowed to share racial bonuses? How can we tell when discussions of why these bonuses exist go nowhere except in tautological circles?

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

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.

"Playing against type" is not restricted to playing against mechanical archetype. That is a gross warping of that term.

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

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.

Are they equally miffed if I play a strong human? I can get a +2 strength as a level 1 human.

What if I play a strong Goliath, are they miffed I'm taking their niche?

Strong Dwarf?

Strong Firbolg?

Strong Earth Genasi?

Or is their niche threatened because someone smaller than them is equally strong? Do they feel that to be strong they need to tower over everyone else? Would they feel threatened if I played a medium strength elf who was taller than them?

What exactly is their complaint with a second strong man?

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

I've been in very few games where culture was so narrowly defined that playing against type would have any significant impact or even be noticed. To me, that also falls more into a background lore area which can also be cool and a lot of fun.

But I've never seen anyone bat an eye if someone is play X when they come from culture Y. Maybe a wizard from a region known for barbarians and vice versa.

It's different than showing up to an AL game with my mountain dwarf wizard or half-orc monk. I've just never seen playing against type be based totally on culture, although of course different campaigns may well put more emphasis on things like that than I've seen.

Yea, my tables do have this a few times. Not as often as I'd like, but we've often had a few characters who are playing against culture or expectations.

Like my Barbarian who was a knight (and a good knight too)

There is more to playing against type than playing against numbers.

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

And I did see some of these where going against culture was really game changing. Both for the player, and the whole group. It is not as clear cut as a dwarven wizard where the racial ASI is mechanicaly enforcing type, but it can be done. It does, however, require outstanding RP that is not commonly achieved by young or inexperienced players. It takes more than one campaign for the average player to pull something like that off.

So now it matters how good at roleplaying you are to be allowed to play against type without needing to have it involve math?

You realize how elitist that sounds right? Telling someone they aren't good enough to play the character they are envisioning?

I guess I should cool off a little, because thinking about it, there are some concepts I would trust more in the hands of an established player. I wouldn't feel comfortable letting a new player be "the romantic partner of a god who was banished to the mortal planes" or other concepts that seem to be trying to get a mechanical advantage.

But I would never consider playing against type to be something only "skilled" RPer's could do properly. A city slicker elf is against type after all, and that isn't really that hard for someone to pull off.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Are they equally miffed if I play a strong human? I can get a +2 strength as a level 1 human.

What if I play a strong Goliath, are they miffed I'm taking their niche?

Strong Dwarf?

Strong Firbolg?

Strong Earth Genasi?

Or is their niche threatened because someone smaller than them is equally strong? Do they feel that to be strong they need to tower over everyone else? Would they feel threatened if I played a medium strength elf who was taller than them?

What exactly is their complaint with a second strong man?

Many races can have the same niche as your example of there being many races who are known for their great physical power shows. But if everyone can match that then there is no niche!

 

[Maxperson]

Not born of dragons?

Volos entry is called "Kobolds: Little Dragons"

And their entry talks about how they believe they were created by Tiamat and that they are proud to be the blood-kin of dragons.

In fact, we also know that the wings of an Urd (a winged kobold) are seen as a gift from Tiamat (the Queen of Evil Dragons) and that their patron god Kurtulumak is seen as a servant of Tiamat. Who is traditionally served by, wait for it, Dragons.

But, sure, size is probably the real reason you did that. Big things strong, small things dexterous. Don't need to get complicated I suppose.

Belief isn't fact and yes, size matters.

Which your proposed rule takes away, ruling it unimportant?

Nope. In MY game, that dex bonus will still be there. I'm just offering it up as a compromise for the folks for whom nothing is important when it comes to stat bonuses and race. Just because I'm willing to give it up as a compromise rule, doesn't mean that it isn't important to me.

The entire point was that by narrowing down races into a single stat mod, you are doing exactly what people have been accusing Tasha's of doing. What you yourself seemed unhappy with. Removing Nuance.

No. That's not accurate. It's not removed unless there are no racial bonuses at all. My compromise limits the nuance, but doesn't remove it.

You have declared that it is more important that Bugbears are strong rather than being dexterous. But, I can and did make a consistent argument that it can be more important that they are dexterous. So, why is your rule to take away these precious identifiers of racial "identity" different than Tashas? Because you made six categories of sameness instead of one?

Your argument doesn't take Bugbear history into account. They've always been big brutes first, but having some small amount of stealth ability.

Even in the 5e description, they are "born for battle and mayhem" and bullies. They're led by the fiercest member, not the most nimble.

The context was that removing the stat modifiers would make the entire race homogenous with every other race, indistinguishable from human.

That's wrong. The context was that humans have no specialization when it comes to stats. Removing racial bonuses from the races other than human and just having bonuses that you can put anywhere also removes specialization when it comes to stats, which makes them just like humans in that regard.

There was quite a bit of hyperbole with posters on that point, but the context was clear.

But they were arguing that getting rid of the racial modifiers made everyone homogenous. So, if multiple races can have the same ability scores with no problem... which one's can't?

Obviously the ones for whom it would make no sense. Let's go with Kobolds. A racial strength bonus would be nonsensical.

Because if everyone being able to choose to have any score they prefer is bad, but some of the races having the same scores is okay... what are the acceptable groups? Who is similar enough that they are allowed to share racial bonuses? How can we tell when discussions of why these bonuses exist go nowhere except in tautological circles?

More Strawmen. Yay! I don't think anyone has said that being able to choose any score you prefer is bad. In fact, you can currently do that. Pick a race with a racial bonus you prefer and presto. But seriously, it's not about choosing the score you prefer being bad, it's about not having a racial bonus being "bad." That's why my compromise is good and has been liked by most of the big arguers for my side of things. It preserves the racial bonuses while at the same time granting you the score you prefer. It's win/win.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes and no.

Yes, DnD had a massive influence on everything, especially the realms of Fantasy.

But, archetypes change and evolve. They must.

The archetypal "hero" has changed over the last 200 years, and the last twenty years, because Archetypes reflect the stories being told by the culture, and those stories change over time.

I agree. They do change over time. Generally through a really powerful standard. Drizzt changed the ranger and the Twilight series changed vampires (I don't know the vampire's name, sorry). Both against types. Both really influential.

Your second bullet point is the real sticky point. Because two players want it, two players don't, and both will have hard feelings about the ruling. There is no solution here, this is pure case by case, table by table,

And we simply can't change that.

As for the psych study, I am passingly familiar with it, but it should be acknowledged that this indicates a spectrum, because we also all know that a lack of choices decreases satisfaction. So, is this too many choices, or are we currently at too few?

Time will tell.

I agree again. Time will tell.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not to mention that the Tasha's lineage rules aren't just "put your racial ability score adjustments anywhere, but you cannot stack them". You can also swap any proficiency with a like proficiency, or build an entirely new lineage (though they should have also included advice about adding in a ribbon or two for flavor and IMO they overvalued feats). It's a good system, and all the game needs.

Exactly.
The possibilities are endless.

Can I ask you a serious question? Would you be okay with it, if at every level, a player could choose any class level (that they are presently on) and take those powers? For example, a 2nd level thief turns 3rd level and takes all the stuff from a 3rd level wizard. Then at 4th level, they take Barbarian. Then at 5th level they take Bard. Is this okay?

I am using a bit of hyperbole, but wouldn't this allow ALL players to play whatever they want? Because I know a few players that would have a lot of fun with that. For many it would ruin what a class is. But, why would that matter if everyone gets to play what they can imagine?

Boundaries. When do they break? For some, it's allowing Tasha's rules. For others, even the above would be approved. That is all anyone is asking from the people here - understand boundaries matter.

 

[Remathilis]

I've been in very few games where culture was so narrowly defined that playing against type would have any significant impact or even be noticed. To me, that also falls more into a background lore area which can also be cool and a lot of fun.

But I've never seen anyone bat an eye if someone is play X when they come from culture Y. Maybe a wizard from a region known for barbarians and vice versa.

It's different than showing up to an AL game with my mountain dwarf wizard or half-orc monk. I've just never seen playing against type be based totally on culture, although of course different campaigns may well put more emphasis on things like that than I've seen.

Well, just to name a few...

* A dwarf who was a psionicist that disliked much of dwarven culture. He shaved is beard (but not his mustache), abstained from drink, and despised materialism.

* An elf who hatred the elven isolationist attitude and told all the other elves where they could keep their arrows.

* Dozens of non-evil drow, orc and goblinoid PCs who rebelled against their evil origins.

If you want human examples, I saw a Red Wizard of Thay that wanted to overthrow the lich king and return Thay back to a mercantile power it was in 3e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Many races can have the same niche as your example of there being many races who are known for their great physical power shows. But if everyone can match that then there is no niche!

Isn't there?

Let me ask these questions.

Is their a niche for healers in a group of six players?

If one person plays a Life Cleric, one person plays a Dream Druid, one person plays an Artificer and the fourth plays a rogue with the Healer feat, has the niche been overlapped?

Does it matter that one of them uses dex, the other intelligence and two wisdom to create that overlap?



You may say this is about race, and so I am missing the point, but the point is that more than race, it is your class that determines what abilities you want. Bards and Warlocks are going to both focus on Cha, and that is more niche overlap than you would get with two Tieflings, one who goes Wizard and one who goes Bard.

So, yeah, there is a niche protection problem in the game if two players sit down to both play a barbarian. That is true whether one is a half orc and the other a goliath, whether they are both half-orcs, or is one is a half-orc and one is a halfling.

The halfling being in this mix doesn't change the niche problem. Also, we have to remember, while Halflings now make better barbarians, half-orcs and goliaths now make better rogues too. This isn't one-sided.

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

Belief isn't fact and yes, size matters.

Well, there is a controversy in DnD about making them descended from dragons explicitly, so they side-eyed it this time. But the Forgotten Realms Wiki still refers to them as being related to dragons, 3.5 had the "Races of Dragon" book that included Kobold stuff, and it seems from some basic research that 3.X was the edition that made Kobolds into Dragon-kin.

5e made it more ambigious, because some people seem to hate Dragons being associated with such weak creatures, but ambigious doesn't mean they denied it, and it is perfectly reasonable and supported by the game that they are descended from dragon blood.

So, rounding this back around. Dragonborn get a strength bonus because they are born of dragons and dragons are strong. Dragons also happen to be big.

Kobolds got a strength penalty (now removed) and are also highly likely to be draconic in origin, but they are small.

Therefore, it seems more likely Dragonborn and Dragons got bonuses to strength because they are big, not because they are draconic.

And, "big things are stronger" is... fine I guess, I just don't find it an interesting way to define nealry half a dozen races.

Nope. In MY game, that dex bonus will still be there. I'm just offering it up as a compromise for the folks for whom nothing is important when it comes to stat bonuses and race. Just because I'm willing to give it up as a compromise rule, doesn't mean that it isn't important to me.

You realize that just because you say you would never use it doesn't mean it wasn't your idea and therefore your rule, right?

You've done this at least twice now, telling me how you'd never use this rule, it is just a compromise....for no one I guess, because who is going to accept a compromise proposed by someone who wouldn't use it themselves?

Your argument doesn't take Bugbear history into account. They've always been big brutes first, but having some small amount of stealth ability.

Even in the 5e description, they are "born for battle and mayhem" and bullies. They're led by the fiercest member, not the most nimble.

Right, big things strong, just like all the other big things.

That's wrong. The context was that humans have no specialization when it comes to stats. Removing racial bonuses from the races other than human and just having bonuses that you can put anywhere also removes specialization when it comes to stats, which makes them just like humans in that regard.

There was quite a bit of hyperbole with posters on that point, but the context was clear.

No, the context was not clear. I think you are only seeing the argument you wish they had made, not the one they were making. After all, if it was just about stats, then Scott Christian or Helldrtich (can't remember which) wouldn't have talked about this rule strangling the years of effort a DM put into world-building. They wouldn't have tried to defend racial abilities by saying they are tied to culture. Heck, they said it would ruin the lore.

It was very clear they were talking about role-playing the race as a whole, not that mechanical specialization would lead them to being mechanically like humans. I'm not sure what the opposite of a strawman is, when you defend a position far more reasonable than was actually taken, but this is what you are doing Max.

Obviously the ones for whom it would make no sense. Let's go with Kobolds. A racial strength bonus would be nonsensical.

Why?

They are born of dragons, they are a race of miners who work all day, the image of them from the monster manual shows clear corded musculature... what would be nonsensical about them getting a strength score?

Being small?

The small size category would also fit Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Bonbo's. Creatures that are fairly well established as being far stronger that we as human's anticipate, sometimes to deadly effect.

With that being the case, I can't even say with certainty that being small would by definition put them as not having a strength bonus. So, why would it be nonsensical?

More Strawmen. Yay! I don't think anyone has said that being able to choose any score you prefer is bad. In fact, you can currently do that. Pick a race with a racial bonus you prefer and presto. But seriously, it's not about choosing the score you prefer being bad, it's about not having a racial bonus being "bad." That's why my compromise is good and has been liked by most of the big arguers for my side of things. It preserves the racial bonuses while at the same time granting you the score you prefer. It's win/win.

I see you are going to ignore the questions I asked, and just redirect the conversation back into dead horse territory.

First off, I have not seen a single person who has been on "your side" of the debate say that they liked your compromise at all. So, not sure where you got the impression it is well liked. I've been the only person to even engage you about it, unless people have been sending you PMs.

Secondly, it does the exact same thing Tasha's is getting blasted for. Only, instead of "just pick two" it is "just pick, but we chose one of the options for you" If picking one score is okay, why is picking two bad? Why do I need to be told that orcs have to have a +2 strength? What am I gaining here? "Big things are strong"? Okay, neat, don't need that to be true. Heck, even you think it is a bad rule, because you've said you would never use it. So, I'm not sure why you are even pushing it.

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

I agree. They do change over time. Generally through a really powerful standard. Drizzt changed the ranger and the Twilight series changed vampires (I don't know the vampire's name, sorry). Both against types. Both really influential.

Well, sort of, but not really my point.

Who is the archetypical farmer?

Now a days you might see a depiction of a man, older, weathered skin, practical and proficient in fixing machines.

Go back a bit, and you see similiar traits, but he is a younger man, strong, builds things, has dreams of living a life of luxury from his country estate.

Go back farther, the farmer was a dirty, desperate man, scrabbling to survive under the booted heels placed on his neck.

There wasn't, to my knowledge, a big influential character who changed the depictions of farmers, it was changed by farmers changing over time.

And this has applied to a lot archetypes. There was a brief period of time when punks and rebels who wanted to tear down established systems were heroes. Now that isn't the case. Not because of an influential character, but because of drifting ideas of what heroism we idealize right now.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, there is a controversy in DnD about making them descended from dragons explicitly, so they side-eyed it this time. But the Forgotten Realms Wiki still refers to them as being related to dragons, 3.5 had the "Races of Dragon" book that included Kobold stuff, and it seems from some basic research that 3.X was the edition that made Kobolds into Dragon-kin.

5e made it more ambigious, because some people seem to hate Dragons being associated with such weak creatures, but ambigious doesn't mean they denied it, and it is perfectly reasonable and supported by the game that they are descended from dragon blood.

So, rounding this back around. Dragonborn get a strength bonus because they are born of dragons and dragons are strong. Dragons also happen to be big.

Kobolds got a strength penalty (now removed) and are also highly likely to be draconic in origin, but they are small.

Therefore, it seems more likely Dragonborn and Dragons got bonuses to strength because they are big, not because they are draconic.

And, "big things are stronger" is... fine I guess, I just don't find it an interesting way to define nealry half a dozen races.

Are they, though? My PHB says that they are size medium and about 6 feet tall and 250 pounds. I've known several humans that size. The strength isn't from just size, since they are the same size as humans, elves, tieflings, etc.

You realize that just because you say you would never use it doesn't mean it wasn't your idea and therefore your rule, right?

You realize that I'm proposing that rule for other people, right?

You've done this at least twice now, telling me how you'd never use this rule, it is just a compromise....for no one I guess, because who is going to accept a compromise proposed by someone who wouldn't use it themselves?

It was a suggestion about how WotC could have had their cake and ate it, too, rather than pissing off a huge chunk of their players. And as for who will use it, well I suppose anyone who reads it and likes it. ::

They are born of dragons, they are a race of miners who work all day, the image of them from the monster manual shows clear corded musculature... what would be nonsensical about them getting a strength score?

Being small?

The small size category would also fit Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Bonbo's. Creatures that are fairly well established as being far stronger that we as human's anticipate, sometimes to deadly effect.


With that being the case, I can't even say with certainty that being small would by definition put them as not having a strength bonus. So, why would it be nonsensical?

Because they are clearly weak. They are not now, nor have they ever been depicted as anything else. I would absolutely be nonsensical for kobolds to get a strength bonus.

First off, I have not seen a single person who has been on "your side" of the debate say that they liked your compromise at all. So, not sure where you got the impression it is well liked. I've been the only person to even engage you about it, unless people have been sending you PMs.

Nope. They just clicked the like button when I first suggested it. Back before you engaged.

Secondly, it does the exact same thing Tasha's is getting blasted for. Only, instead of "just pick two" it is "just pick, but we chose one of the options for you" If picking one score is okay, why is picking two bad? Why do I need to be told that orcs have to have a +2 strength? What am I gaining here? "Big things are strong"? Okay, neat, don't need that to be true. Heck, even you think it is a bad rule, because you've said you would never use it. So, I'm not sure why you are even pushing it.

You're getting that ORCS are strong, because that's what orcs are. It's not just big things that are strong, especially because orcs ain't particularly big. They too are medium creatures the same size as elves, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Isn't there?

Let me ask these questions.

Is their a niche for healers in a group of six players?

If one person plays a Life Cleric, one person plays a Dream Druid, one person plays an Artificer and the fourth plays a rogue with the Healer feat, has the niche been overlapped?

Does it matter that one of them uses dex, the other intelligence and two wisdom to create that overlap?



You may say this is about race, and so I am missing the point, but the point is that more than race, it is your class that determines what abilities you want. Bards and Warlocks are going to both focus on Cha, and that is more niche overlap than you would get with two Tieflings, one who goes Wizard and one who goes Bard.

So, yeah, there is a niche protection problem in the game if two players sit down to both play a barbarian. That is true whether one is a half orc and the other a goliath, whether they are both half-orcs, or is one is a half-orc and one is a halfling.

The halfling being in this mix doesn't change the niche problem. Also, we have to remember, while Halflings now make better barbarians, half-orcs and goliaths now make better rogues too. This isn't one-sided.

Yes, classes require niche protection to exist in order to work. This is clear. Some of us want races similarly (if to much lesser degree) have niches as well. You might not want this, and that's perfectly fine, but the concept itself shouldn't be difficult to get.