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

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

Yeah, good question. And even more broadly, I think we should ask what is the purpose of having races? What should their function be narratively, what should their function be mechanically?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

You will have to forgive me. I am a bit confused. The point that I brought up was that the world of Star Trek doesn't seem to be held to the fire like D&D. We are talking about the problem in D&D that arises when one race is declared smarter or stronger on average than another race. Star Trek does this. The fact that it does this without issue seems relevant.

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.

You may think I am using an extreme example, but I don't think I am. I feel there are many that would rather see class abilities float as opposed to racial stat bonuses and racial abilities. It's a guess, but I believe an accurate one.
As for a new edition, again, if you are going to change one of the core rules of a rulebook, you should probably start from scratch (imho). I remember the days of 300 pages of errata for 4e. It was because they did things like this without testing them through.

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.

Fair enough on the liars part. I don't really think they are lying as well. I think they are trying to go back and rethink what they did while retconning their original ideas.

And I just don't see how everyone on the board, that I know is smart, doesn't understand the premise behind the numbers. Yes, not all dwarves have a high con. There are some that rolled an 6 in con. They get +2, now they have an 8. Or if they were doing point buy, that is their 8 stat, now they have a 10. An elf can place their 14 in con. They end up with a 14. There is a range. There always was. The bonus is exactly that - a bonus. (Whether it's biological, cultural, etc. does not matter for this point to be understood).

The only thing the bonus does is allow one group to start with a 16 or 17 in their bonus trait, versus a 15. That's it. There is still range for all races. There is still dexterous dwarf. There is still the clumsy dwarf. There is still the strong elf. And still the weak elf. There is still the charismatic half-orc. There is still the ugly half-orc.

And for the record. Here is what it says under every single race in the PHB:
"Your dwarf character has an assortment of inborn abilities, part and parcel of Dwarven nature - +2 con."
"Your elf character has a variety of natural abilities, the result of thousands of years of elven refinement - +2 dex."
"You halfling character has a number of traits in common with all other halflings - +2 dex."
"It's hard to make generalizations about humans, but your human character has these traits - +1 for all abilities."
"Your draconic heritage manifests in a variety of traits you share with other dragonborn - +2 str."
"Your gnome character has certain characteristics in common with all other gnomes - +2 int."
"Your half-elf character has some qualities in common with elves and some that are unique to half-elves - +2 cha."
"Your half-orc character has certain traits deriving from your orc ancestry - +2 str."
"Tieflings share certain racial traits as a result of their infernal descent - +2 cha."

I see share, inborn, natural, in common with all, ancestry, and a bunch of implied language that suggests these are biological and shared by all in the race. But, just like all things, this evidence will be read and the reader will gleam what it wants to out of it.

 

[ph0rk]

Starting stat cap matters for several levels.

And it is still the case than no race can start with a higher ability modifier than humans, or get to a +5 any quicker than a human.

If the fluff was any good, then the fluff alone would do the job of differentiating the races. It isn’t as good as that, and ability score bumps aren’t either with variant human around. Nobody can ever get past the cap of 20, and nobody can start with a mechanically meaningful higher stat than a human. Nor can they get a mechanically meaningful bonus greater than a +3 any faster than a human can.

In that situation (which is entirely the result of the design decisions at WotC), they have already decided racial stat mods don’t matter, they simply weren’t ready to admit it to themselves.

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.

No. Your arguments aren’t that compelling, and you’ve been shown that, but you don’t seem to care. You don’t like this change - but it is happening, so you have three options. Homebrew or houserule them away as if TCoE and the AL stuff never happened, play them as-is, or play something else.

If I was that upset at a design choice in a game, I’d play something else (which is what I did with 4e). You do what you want, but the horse has left the barn as far as the TCoE stuff is concerned - it is out in the world (or will be soon) and it is official, or as official as variant rules are.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If the fluff was any good, then the fluff alone would do the job of differentiating the races.

Oh wow! I guess that should apply to the classes too! If fluff was any good then the fluff alone would be enough to differentiate the wizard from the fighter!

 

[ph0rk]

Oh wow! I guess that should apply to classes too! If fluff was any good then the fluff alone would be enough to differentiate the wizard from the fighter!

This is merely an extension of Max's argument that the racial ability score mods flow directly from the fluff, but are also necessary to prop up that fluff.

That's a circular argument.

Anyway, class abilities aren't anything like a +2/+1 to ability scores. Classes have neatly defined things that work rather differently (well, most of them - sorcerers got the short end of that stick, but there was only so much space left for their redesign after warlocks and wizards were set). I suspect you know that, but I guess points for snark?

The thing is, there are already other mechanical things races get that differentiate them. Ability score boosts are not only ineffective but also uninspired in this regard.

 

[Maxperson]

No. Your arguments aren’t that compelling, and you’ve been shown that, but you don’t seem to care.

How compelling it is to you isn't a concern of mine. You are not the end all, be all of how compelling an argument is.

You don’t like this change - but it is happening, so you have three options. Homebrew or houserule them away as if TCoE and the AL stuff never happened, play them as-is, or play something else.

I also have the option not to use this optional rule. Books that come out that aren't core don't retroactively change what the PHB says. The AL might be opting into these rules, but it won't be a house rule to ignore them.

If I was that upset at a design choice in a game, I’d play something else (which is what I did with 4e). You do what you want, but the horse has left the barn as far as the TCoE stuff is concerned - it is out in the world (or will be soon) and it is official, or as official as variant rules are.

Cool beans. I'm not in the least bit upset.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is merely an extension of Max's argument that the racial ability score mods flow directly from the fluff, but are also necessary to prop up that fluff.

That's a circular argument.

Anyway, class abilities aren't anything like a +2/+1 to ability scores. Classes have neatly defined things that work rather differently (well, most of them - sorcerers got the short end of that stick, but there was only so much space left for their redesign after warlocks and wizards were set). I suspect you know that, but I guess points for snark?

Classes have fluff, and rules that support that fluff. The same thing. Your objection is nonsensical.

 

[ph0rk]

How compelling it is to you isn't a concern of mine.

Then I suppose the fact you'd like me to stop isn't a concern of mine.

Cool beans. I'm not in the least bit upset.

You come off as upset, with a side of how dare you. But mostly upset.

 

[Argyle King]

I can see the appeal of not using the +2/+1 (or whatever) component of races as a defining trait.

I agree with those who say there are other racial aspects to differentiate the races. However (despite what contemporary designers of the game claim*,) where those current bonuses are placed do act as a balancing mechanism -even if it is unintentional or accidental.

Allowing all races to choose bonuses is not an inherently bad idea. Though, I would posit that it is a change which prompts a need to rebalance and re-imagine racial abilities. As much of the game was originally built (both crunch and fluff-wise) around a certain set of assumptions (which includes aforementioned bonuses and defining traits of in-game creatures,) I lean toward believing that changing that core assumption also means changes to the core underpinnings of the game system.

(*FWIW, I have disagreed with much of the contemporary views on the game long before the new book. For example, flight is deemed to have no impact on a creature's value or ability. I believe that view is wrong from both an in-game perspective and from a broader perspective of strategy and tactics.)

I would be perfectly happy to move away from the traditional +2/+1 bonuses as a way of defining races. Though, I believe that doing so means needing to redesign core parts of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Then I suppose the fact you'd like me to stop isn't a concern of mine.

Next time you do it, I will report it. I tried to resolve this in a mature fashion, but if you're going to persist in that behavior, I'll let the mods handle it.