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

[ph0rk]

And that is the point. You are fine with it. Cool. Others are not. So if they implemented something like this, there should be a debate prior to implementation.

They can't please everyone. They might as well please the group likely to spend the most money over the next 5-10 years.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And that is the point. You are fine with it. Cool. Others are not. So if they implemented something like this, there should be a debate prior to implementation. Maybe even a test. Maybe it should be played. Like a... play... test.
Or do the work and rewrite the PHB.

No. It doesn’t actually affect the person who dislikes a la cart levels. They can play the way they like. They are being unreasonable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Here is the point. You do not have to accept Star Trek's vision of races. That's is all good. But because you and some others don't, but the majority does, should they provide sweeping changes to their lore?

I don't know the answer. If you are hurting real life people, then it should probably change. But the way to change it might not be dismiss lore. It might not be to dismiss mechanics. It is probably to create something new.

Okay, now we are shifting. You originally said "I mean we wholeheartedly accept Star Treks' version of species"

And now we are at "you and some others don't, but the majority does,"

So how do you know that the majority of DnD players wholeheartedly accept Star Trek's version of species? You seem to simply be presuming that your preference is widely held, which is not a stable footing.

Also, I find your second paragraph interesting. Because you seem to be advocating for an even more extreme position than anyone has taken. If there is a problem in DnD the solution might not be to change the lore, and it might not be to change the mechanics... it might be to make an entirely new game that isn't DnD.

That likely isn't what you meant, but I otherwise don't know what you could possibly mean in this context.

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

Sure. I'm ignoring the designers' weak and obviously false justifications for their change. They are trying to retroactively make an untruth, true by virtue of claiming it is so.

Racial bonuses, up to and including 5e, have never just been about the PCs. They are RACIAL bonuses, not PC bonuses.

Here is the PHB quote.

"RACIAL TRAITS
The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races."

Ability bonuses are one of those racial traits that are COMMON to MEMBERS of that RACE. I mean, you can believe their lies if you want, but the truth is in print.

Except, also in print, those racial bonuses are only applied to PCs.

But, you are convinced WoTC is full of liars, so there is nothing more to be said here.


I will however, switch to something interesting I found. I was reading through a different thread and I noticed Max that you said something that relates to all of this. You mentioned that a 12 in dex was all that was needed to be graceful.

I find this an interesting position to take, because if I pull up a dice roller, and let us say we roll 3d6 straight for all Dwarves on Dex. Do you know what that spread looks like? 37.5% of all dwarves would have a dexterity of 12 or higher. Humans with their +1 to everything? 50%

Meanwhile 62.5% of elves would meet that requirement.

Now, I'm not entirely sure how to mathematically compare 37.5% to 50% to 62.5% to get the full implication of population numbers, but I find it interesting that less that 2/3 of all elves are currently "as graceful as an elf" while over 1/3 of Dwarves are, and humans are a 50/50 split over being "as graceful as an elf"

The largest difference in the game (+0 to +2 on the racial mod) works out to a 25% difference amongst the population. So, your elf, as I am reading these numbers based on your statement, is only 25% more likely to be "as graceful as an elf" as a dwarf is.

Interesting numbers.

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

Yawn.
I never said anything of the sort. I have stated a dozen times my exact feelings about this. Here is what I said:

I know that you have talked about lore a lot, but I thought I remembered you also saying that no one was talking about the races being indistiguishable without the racial ASI's. Helldrtich's post saying exactly that was my point.

And if you want to simply discuss how it will change the game.... More races that traditionally did not have +2 to the primary attribute of a class, being used in that class.

That is the only effect this will have on the game. Because as we keep showing, none of the rest of the game has ever been effected by the PC stats. And there is no reason to assume that will change.

 

[Maxperson]

Except, also in print, those racial bonuses are only applied to PCs.

Except that there has been no point since the DMG was released where that has been true. This is from the DMG.

"You can create an NPC just as you would a player character, using the rules in the Player's Handbook. You can even use a character sheet to keep track of the NPC's vital information."

And...

"If you don't have enough players to form a full party, you can use NPCs to fill out the ranks. These NPCs should be the same level as the lowest-level adventurer in the party and built (either by you or your players) using the character creation and advancement rules in the Player's Handbook."

I will however, switch to something interesting I found. I was reading through a different thread and I noticed Max that you said something that relates to all of this. You mentioned that a 12 in dex was all that was needed to be graceful.

I find this an interesting position to take, because if I pull up a dice roller, and let us say we roll 3d6 straight for all Dwarves on Dex. Do you know what that spread looks like? 37.5% of all dwarves would have a dexterity of 12 or higher. Humans with their +1 to everything? 50%

Meanwhile 62.5% of elves would meet that requirement.

First, not all humans have +1 to everything. There are variant humans, so it's probably between 30% and 45%. Second, close to 2/3 of an entire race being graceful is a graceful race. Just over 1/3 to close to half isn't enough for the race to be anything. You need the majority to be that way. Enough to make the average of the race graceful.

 

[Maxperson]

Nothing of value is lost.

Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot value?

 

[Scott Christian]

Okay, now we are shifting. You originally said "I mean we wholeheartedly accept Star Treks' version of species"

And now we are at "you and some others don't, but the majority does,"

So how do you know that the majority of DnD players wholeheartedly accept Star Trek's version of species? You seem to simply be presuming that your preference is widely held, which is not a stable footing.

Not my beliefs and I am not referring to just D&D players. I am referring to people who like Star Trek. I go with the numbers. The shows are huge. The games are popular. The movies are big. The franchise is strong. And there is very little vocalization about vulcans being smarter than humans, and klingons being stronger than humans. It is accepted. D&D seems to not be in the same boat.

Also, I find your second paragraph interesting. Because you seem to be advocating for an even more extreme position than anyone has taken. If there is a problem in DnD the solution might not be to change the lore, and it might not be to change the mechanics... it might be to make an entirely new game that isn't DnD.

That likely isn't what you meant, but I otherwise don't know what you could possibly mean in this context.

I was refraining a previous statement of mine. If you are going to change some of the fundamental rules inside the core rulebook that has worked and been around for five years, you might as well write a new edition of D&D. I mean if they suddenly proposed that classes no longer existed except in lore, and then made all the available class features available to every PC, then maybe they should just write a new edition.

I know that you have talked about lore a lot, but I thought I remembered you also saying that no one was talking about the races being indistiguishable without the racial ASI's. Helldrtich's post saying exactly that was my point.

And if you want to simply discuss how it will change the game.... More races that traditionally did not have +2 to the primary attribute of a class, being used in that class.

That is the only effect this will have on the game... Because as we keep showing, none of the rest of the game has ever been effected by the PC stats. And there is no reason to assume that will change.

I will finish the bolded sentence for you - that we can see right now.

And yes you have shown that, just as the other side has shown you that:

• 5% doesn't matter and isn't noticeable, yet is still being insisted upon by some players
• the entire debate is about 16 vs 15
• there are numerous examples of mechanics matching lore
• having positive/negative race/class combinations creates patterns

So you are correct. So is the other side.

One last thing to all: In my experience, it is disingenuous to argue against something you know is true. Some people do it for fun. Some people like to play devil's advocate. But there is generally a wink and nod or a disclaimer prior to the argument. Arguing that a bonus is not a racial bonus, and instead a PC bonus that happens to be listed under race, seems disingenuous. Especially when this is quoted:

"RACIAL TRAITS
The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races."

Ability bonuses are one of those racial traits that are COMMON to MEMBERS of that RACE.

I mean, if you want to play devil's advocate, that's cool. But to ignore the actual words inside the PHB, especially when arguing about the exact thing the PHB talks about, seems shady. At least recognize that it is before trying to find examples elsewhere.

 

[ph0rk]

First, not all humans have +1 to everything. There are variant humans, so it's probably between 30% and 45%. Second, close to 2/3 of an entire race being graceful is a graceful race. Just over 1/3 to close to half isn't enough for the race to be anything. You need the majority to be that way. Enough to make the average of the race graceful.

Bugbears and Elves can start with the same modifier bonus to dexterity (+3).

Are Bugbears as graceful as Elves?

Gnolls have the same +2 to dex elves do.

Are Gnolls as graceful as Elves?
Are Halfings?
Are Kobolds?
Are Mark of Warding Dwarves?
Are Goblins?
Are Grung?
Are Feral Tieflings?

If the crunch is so important to prop up the fluff, why can so many other races be built to have a +3 modifier bonus at level 1 with point buy?

Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot value?

Value what you want, but see above. The system doesn't value what you argue you do.

 

[Scott Christian]

If the crunch is so important to prop up the fluff, why can so many other races be build to have a +3 modifier bonus at level 1 with point buy?

The reason is because dexterity represents a broad range of capabilities. From balancing on a cliff edge to doing a backflip, to disarming a trap to shooting a bow. Traits are not perfect representations. So your gnoll is not as graceful, but they can leap and dive and roll as well. Your halflings are not as graceful, but they have great fine motor dexterity. Etc.

 

[Maxperson]

Bugbears and Elves can start with the same modifier bonus to dexterity (+3).

Are Bugbears as graceful as Elves?

Objectively, the answer is no. Elves get +2 to dex and Bugbears only get +1, therefore Elves as a race average a higher level of gracefulness than Bugbears.

Gnolls have the same +2 to dex elves do.

Are Gnolls as graceful as Elves?

Perhaps. They average the same dexterity, but is it due to grace or some other reason.

Value what you want, but see above. The system doesn't value what you argue you do.

It does. You are incorrectly trying to limit value to only mechanics, and then not even the full mechanic, but rather only the modifier. The system doesn't do that. The fluff is also involved and so is the entire stat.

 

[ph0rk]

The reason is because dexterity represents a broad range of capabilities. From balancing on a cliff edge to doing a backflip, to disarming a trap to shooting a bow. Traits are not perfect representations. So your gnoll is not as graceful, but they can leap and dive and roll as well. Your halflings are not as graceful, but they have great fine motor dexterity. Etc.

Oh, sure, but Max was earlier making the claim that Elves, as a graceful race, ought to have a dex bonus.

If a dex bonus can be explained in other ways, the fluff supporting the crunch falls apart. If there is different fluff necessary to explain the same crunch with different races, it blows apart.

None of the fluff matters, though, because an Elf can't get a dex above 20. Anyone else that wants it can have a dex of 20.

Implied in a capped attribute system is that there are no races with a distribution of $stat with tails that go beyond the tails of other races. They all have a maximum of 20. So, subraces or other cultures or whatever could have attribute bonuses of a different variety.

You are incorrectly trying to limit value to only mechanics, and then not even the full mechanic, but rather only the modifier. The system doesn't do that. The fluff is also involved and so is the entire stat.

I am correctly noticing how much space the system gives to attributes and ability checks and how little space the system gives to racial background fluff.

An elf, no matter how otherworldy graceful they may be, can't ever have a dex above 20 without manuals (that anyone can use).

A human or dwarf who feels like it can have a dex of 20. Their otherworldly grace counts for essentially nothing, as far as player characters and ability modifiers go.

As was noted above, this is all about the difference between a 15 and a 16 at character creation - yet many other races can have a 16. Including the most generic and flavorless/fluffless race there is: Human.

However, if the fluff shouldn't be "limited to mechanics" then races don't need ability modifiers at all. Glad we now agree on that point.