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

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Right, so maybe, just maybe, size is a poor indicator of strength? Which makes me wonder why we would rely on it to tell us who is stronger than a normal human...

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

You are proposing a compromise for people on your side of the debate, that you and likely others won't use. You guys will keep doing exactly what people on my side have side. Just use the base rules as written and ignore the optional rule.

So, it is a compromise where you are still doing what you want, but we are limited in our customizing ability, to make you feel better about our rules.

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. ::

WoTC is weeks away from releasing Tasha's rules. I don't think you are going to be able to jump in front of that train and derail it.

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.

Right, what about their description that I provided makes them weak?

Born of Dragons? Nope, you used that to tell me Dragonborn are strong.
Miners? Nope, that is why dwarves are strong.
Constant physical activity? Nope, that is why Goliaths are strong.
Being small? We just finished saying size was a poor indicator, and I countered small = weak with my points about Apes.
Depictions? Well, like I said, the 5e Monster Manual kobold looks pretty muscular. I'll link an image.

I see well defined pecs, abs, biceps, triceps, thighs... if I saw a man with those muscles, I certainly wouldn't say he is clearly weak. And this is the main image of Kobolds for this edition.

Now, I'll grant, we are told they are weak. But, I can trivially see a setting where the DM decides "Kobolds aren't spindly and weak" and doesn't really have to change much else about them.

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

I think that getting a like is hardly enough to say that you have massive support for your rule. Especially if you said literally anything else in that post that they might have liked.

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.

So, it is completely arbitrary.

Orcs are strong because Orcs are strong. Dragonborn are strong because Dragonborn are strong. Kobolds are weak because Kobolds are weak. Elves are graceful because elves are graceful. Dwarves are tough because dwarves are tough. Humans are humans because they are humans.

It is meaningless logic that can be changed with no effort and no repercussions. Because maybe instead of being strong Orcs are spiritual. Why are they spiritual? Because they are Spiritual. Same logic, same defense.

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

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.

And by a "much lesser degree" you mean that they share that niche with at least dozen others. I mean, "strong" describes

Orcs
Goliaths
Firbolgs
Mountain Dwarves
Dragonborn
Half Elves
Half Orcs
Leonin
Bugbears
Earth Genasi
Fallen Aasimar
Tritons
Tortles
Changelings
Warforged
Beasthide Shifters
Longtooth Shifters
Githyanki
Centaurs
Minotaurs
Simic Hybrids
Locathah
Zariel Tieflings
Duergar

That is 24 races/subraces who do or can get a +1 or +2 strength. Out of a total count of around 67... That is over 1/3 of all of the official options in the game. Your niche is 36% of all races.

So yes, it is a little hard to see why you are vehemently defending this niche, generally at that point of saturation, it isn't a niche anymore.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And by a "much lesser degree" you mean that they share that niche with at least dozen others. I mean, "strong" describes

Orcs
Goliaths
Firbolgs
Mountain Dwarves
Dragonborn
Half Elves
Half Orcs
Leonin
Bugbears
Earth Genasi
Fallen Aasimar
Tritons
Tortles
Changelings
Warforged
Beasthide Shifters
Longtooth Shifters
Githyanki
Centaurs
Minotaurs
Simic Hybrids
Locathah
Zariel Tieflings
Duergar

That is 24 races/subraces who do or can get a +1 or +2 strength. Out of a total count of around 67... That is over 1/3 of all of the official options in the game. Your niche is 36% of all races.

So yes, it is a little hard to see why you are vehemently defending this niche, generally at that point of saturation, it isn't a niche anymore.

Personally I think there are too many races and I certainly would only use a fraction of them in one setting. Nevertheless, the point of having different species to begin with that they're different from each other, and this is one way they can be differentiated, but of course not the only one.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, so maybe, just maybe, size is a poor indicator of strength? Which makes me wonder why we would rely on it to tell us who is stronger than a normal human...

No. It's still a good indicator. Indicator being less than perfect, means that you can have creatures like Dragonborn which are strong due to their draconic heritage and Kobolds which are weak due to size. Large tends to be strong. Small tends to be weak. Specific exceptions are fine and don't break anything.

Right, what about their description that I provided makes them weak?

It ignores the following...

"Physically weak, they are easy prey for predators. This vulnerability forces them to band together." and "Kobolds make up for their physical ineptitude with a cleverness for trap making and tunneling."

I see well defined pecs, abs, biceps, triceps, thighs... if I saw a man with those muscles, I certainly wouldn't say he is clearly weak. And this is the main image of Kobolds for this edition.

If you saw a man with those muscles, the arms would be three times as thick. Well defined strings are still weak.

I think that getting a like is hardly enough to say that you have massive support for your rule. Especially if you said literally anything else in that post that they might have liked.

There wasn't anything else in the post. It was a simple, "They could have left the +2 as a racial bonus and then added another +2 as a floating bonus so that everyone could have what they wanted."

That's it. It got likes from my side of the debate, including @Helldritch I believe.

So, it is completely arbitrary.

It seems arbitrary to you means reasoned, because nothing I've said has had no reason for it to be that way.

Orcs are strong because Orcs are strong. Dragonborn are strong because Dragonborn are strong. Kobolds are weak because Kobolds are weak. Elves are graceful because elves are graceful. Dwarves are tough because dwarves are tough. Humans are humans because they are humans.

Wow. Not even close.

Orcs have a strength bonus, because... "Strength and power are the greatest of orcish virtues..." As as result, natural selection favors the strong and strength would be a trait of the race.

Dragonborn have a str bonus, because they are literally born of dragons and strength is iconically dragonish. Much more so than charisma.

Kobolds have a str penalty because they are physically small and frail, despite the defined strings you want to call muscles.

Elves have a dex bonus, because they are lithe and graceful.

Dwarves are have a con bonus, because they are short, stocky, tough and of the earth.

Humans have no set bonus, because they are versatile and adaptable.

There are reasons for everything.

 

[Helldritch]

There wasn't anything else in the post. It was a simple, "They could have left the +2 as a racial bonus and then added another +2 as a floating bonus so that everyone could have what they wanted."

That's it. It got likes from my side of the debate, including @Helldritch I believe.

And even then, though I wholeheartedly agree with your solution. But, I would only put a floating +1 max. A +2 is way to big for my taste but even that is way better than a total +2/+1 all around.

And the reason? Exactly for what you said. Exactly this.

There are reasons for everything.

And again Dwarves should be tough. Dragonborn should be strong. Elves agiles and so on. If you want a floating +1, good. But remove subraces altogether.

 

[Argyle King]

I've seen a few comments which have mentioned breaking away from preconceived notions of race and class.

I am in no way opposed to that. Though, I am curious why folks with such desires would choose D&D over other systems.

 

[Maxperson]

And even then, though I wholeheartedly agree with your solution. But, I would only put a floating +1 max. A +2 is way to big for my taste but even that is way better than a total +2/+1 all around.

Is that by definition halfheartedly?

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Wow. Not even close.

Orcs have a strength bonus, because... "Strength and power are the greatest of orcish virtues..." As as result, natural selection favors the strong and strength would be a trait of the race.

Dragonborn have a str bonus, because they are literally born of dragons and strength is iconically dragonish. Much more so than charisma.

Kobolds have a str penalty because they are physically small and frail, despite the defined strings you want to call muscles.

Elves have a dex bonus, because they are lithe and graceful.

Dwarves are have a con bonus, because they are short, stocky, tough and of the earth.

Humans have no set bonus, because they are versatile and adaptable.

There are reasons for everything.

Thermian argument. Those reasons, which reside on in-universe justifications to gain legitimacy, only exist as fictional figments of imagination. They can be changed at any time forany reason by any author who so chooses. The argument against such is recursive, as the fiction appeals to its own nature for persuasive power, unaware that as a fictional construct it is by nature malleable, without intrinsic essence.

 

[Maxperson]

Thermian argument. Those reasons, which reside on in-universe justifications to gain legitimacy, only exist as fictional figments of imagination. They can be changed at any time forany reason by any author who so chooses. The argument against such is recursive, as the fiction appeals to its own nature for persuasive power, unaware that as a fictional construct it is by nature malleable, without intrinsic essence.

Nobody is arguing that you can't change them. In fact, we have specifically said that settings can and do change them and when you do, stat bonuses can change. However, when talking about the default game with the default races, those reasons for the bonuses exist and are reasonable.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

To be fair, we have been talking about classes and races this entire time. Heroes played by players in a D&D game. Not common things. I assumed we were still discussing D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

Right, what about their description that I provided makes them weak?

Born of Dragons? Nope, you used that to tell me Dragonborn are strong.
Miners? Nope, that is why dwarves are strong.
Constant physical activity? Nope, that is why Goliaths are strong.
Being small? We just finished saying size was a poor indicator, and I countered small = weak with my points about Apes.
Depictions? Well, like I said, the 5e Monster Manual kobold looks pretty muscular. I'll link an image.

Your image of the kobold does look strong. And who knows, maybe they have that chimpanzee strength, which is much different than human strength. That said, it also means they are a different species, and clearly with different species, such as silverbacks and chimps and humans and orangutans, means they are all clearly different in stats. I say humans get +5 to int, silverbacks get +10 to strength, and bonobos get +5 to cha.