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

[Northern Phoenix]

There's no way I'm gonna be playing with these optional rules without some pretty strong limitations. I can only hope DMs who aren't as confident don't end up getting themselves get pressured into it against their will.

 

[ph0rk]

There's no way I'm gonna be playing with these optional rules without some pretty strong limitations. I can only hope DMs who aren't as confident don't end up getting themselves get pressured into it against their will.

These aren't as bad as allowing races like Aarakocra, Yuan-ti, or Satyr, in terms of game-breaking crunch issues. Nowhere near as bad, in fact.

 

[Northern Phoenix]

These aren't as bad as allowing races like Aarakocra, Yuan-ti, or Satyr, in terms of game-breaking crunch issues. Nowhere near as bad, in fact.

In most cases, i agree.

 

[Oofta]

These aren't as bad as allowing races like Aarakocra, Yuan-ti, or Satyr, in terms of game-breaking crunch issues. Nowhere near as bad, in fact.

Which is probably why I don't allow any of those races in my home game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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."

Hmmm. I see options. Options are optional.

For example, it says "you can create an NPC". By saying can they are acknowleding it is a choice. It nessecarily means that you "can" also not create them with the player's handbook.

You may also want to look at the Monster Manual, which states that you "can" customize NPCs by adding racial traits. However, since it is an option, that means that you also do not need to add them, and they can still represent that race.

If you see options as iron-clad rules, that might be part of your problem in this point.

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.

Wow... just wow.

A third of all dwarves are as graceful as elves, and that doesn't ruin anything, in fact it is... well nothing according to you.

But, we absolutely need to have races with mods so that 2/3 of all elves are graceful, or no one can be unique and it is all rubber masks.

Again, that is a 25% difference in likelihood. That is all. And, Variant Human is an option, and that option could also go into Dex, or it could not. Dropping the population to below the dwarven percentage (your 30%) based solely on that option being possible is just straight up deceitful math. Heck, I can't even say it is math, because you offer no support for that decision.

37.5 is the +0 Dex option. Even if I decide that half of all humans do not put a +1 is dex, and they do not take a dex feat (which by the way, makes them act like elves with their 62.5) then all I need to do is average those two numbers (and I want to point out this is half of all humans being variant, and every single variant choosing to ignore dex with both of their +1's. This is the most extreme example, and essentially would not happen)

(37.5+50)/2 = 43.75

And, since we assumed that variable, lets go the other direction.

(50+62.5)/2 = 56.25

So, Humans are between 43.75% and 56.25%. So, it is potentially possible for the majority of all humans to be as graceful as elves.

Either way, I think 1/3 of the population being of a particular type is what we call a "super minority" That many dwarves being graceful is very significant. Just to throw a number out there. In 2017 India had a female population that was 48.18%. The lowest globally was Oman which was 34.16, less than the population of Dwarves that are as graceful as elves.

Would you say that with that percentage, there are effectively no women with Oman citizenship? You did say "Just over 1/3 to close to half isn't enough for the race to be anything." in terms of Dwarves being graceful. So, if 37.5 percent isn't signifigant to be considered, then logically 34.16% smaller and therefore worth even less consideration, correct?

Or, is it more reasonable to assume that you do not need over 50% of the population to be something, for it to be a significant matter?

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

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.

Well... yeah. Not all DnD players are Trekkies. And, you can like the show without having to like their depiction of races.

You are moving far outside of the context of this discussion to even bring in the global trek fandom though.

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.

Right. That is an extreme position that no one else has taken. But, if you want to advocate for them to abandon 5e and write an entirely new edition, go ahead. I don't find this change nearly that large.

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:

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.

I addressed Max's points above.

And, if you want to say I am playing Devil's Advocate, well, I am also arguing that the designers of the game are not liars. I don't think that I know that the truth is that they are liars.

In fact, I find it quite believable, that when you take in the DMG and MM that they did not intend the bonuses to be applied to NPCs across the board as a default. Which is what Max and now you are saying is "known to be true"

Instead, I find it very easy to think that since they were thinking in terms of PC archetypes, that they were thinking that all Dwarf PCs would get +2 Con, but that not every single dwarf ever created by the DM would automatically get a +2 Con applied to their final scores.

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

In most cases, i agree.

Which cases don't you agree with, because over the last week I have legit tried to break this, and I have found nothing that could not have already been done within the game.

Maybe you already banned something at your table that would allow for this, but DnD Beyond hasn't banned any official content, and it is from official content that we should determine the state of the game, not people's preferred houserules for content.

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

Which is probably why I don't allow any of those races in my home game.

And yet, they are still officially sanctioned content....

 

[Oofta]

And yet, they are still officially sanctioned content....

I'm allowed preferences and thinking that some game options including PCs that can fly are overpowered. They're fine in certain campaigns, just not in mine.

What's your point?

 

[Maxperson]

Just quoting that for posterity.

Cool. But they are different enough to warrant different words with different definitions and within two synonym steps you have significantly different words. For example.

Graceful has as a synonym sophisticated, which has the synonym worldly. So with just two words from graceful we have worldly which has nothing at all to do with being graceful. The changes are pretty profound pretty quickly.

So while the initial synonym is pretty similar, the words are still different enough to warrant a dex bonus for different fluff.

If this bothers you so much, don't play DnD anymore.

But, if you'd instead prefer to see this as some sort of conspiracy to make you think diversity thoughts - just don't play 5e anymore. You probably are not their target market anymore, anyway.

You don't get to decide what I play or don't play. Don't tell me to stop playing D&D again. It's not your place. So far you've tried to tell me what I should or shouldn't play and what I can value. Stop.

 

[Maxperson]

Hmmm. I see options. Options are optional.

For example, it says "you can create an NPC". By saying can they are acknowleding it is a choice. It nessecarily means that you "can" also not create them with the player's handbook.

You may also want to look at the Monster Manual, which states that you "can" customize NPCs by adding racial traits. However, since it is an option, that means that you also do not need to add them, and they can still represent that race.

If you see options as iron-clad rules, that might be part of your problem in this point.

What you choose to do is entirely irrelevant to the absolute fact that the 5e default core has rules for NPCs to those bonuses. These are not optional rules like the resting variants that you can choose to put in the game. They are default rules that you must choose not to use.

A third of all dwarves are as graceful as elves, and that doesn't ruin anything, in fact it is... well nothing according to you.

This is incorrect. A third of all dwarves have a dex of 12 or higher, which is not at all the same as them being graceful. With dwarven builds, it's manual dexterity, hand eye coordination, etc. Grace isn't a word most would use for a dwarf with a 12 or even 14 dex.

 

[Argyle King]

In the context of D&D, how do you feel terms like "elf" and "dwarf" should be defined?

That is to say: do you feel they have any meaning as a way to establish shared fiction (or some sense of verisimilitude-defining boundaries of a general narrative ballpark) while playing a game which relies upon a shared understanding of a fictional world?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the cap being the same for each race isn't an issue, then floating stat bonuses aren't an issue. To argue otherwise means one doesn't grasp the underlying math of bounded accuracy.

Starting stat cap matters for several levels. And as we know that most campaigns happen at levels below ten, in practice it matters for overwhelming majority of games actually being played. Yes, any race can eventually max any stat but that happens on a higher level when the characters are far from average members of their species and closer to epic heroes.