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

[Chaosmancer]

So, one thing occurred to me while chatting with a friend. Someone asked a while back if I would have been fine with no racial ASIs at all and just increased point buy. Something like 34 points with no racial ASIs and 16's cost 11 pts.

And I answered that that would have been fine, but it would require rewriting too much of the game to get rid of everyone's ASIs. And I didn't quite realize why I was thinking that until just recently.

It is because rolling for stats is still the default. That is why they went with the floating +2/+1 instead of just removing ASIs and making a higher point but, because the default is to roll, and the only way to have the desired effect on rolled stats, is to have floating ASIs.

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

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?

That the official game already allows things that are more powerful than this rule.

You are allowed your preferences and all, but saying that this rule will break the game as a whole, when the game has options that are much more powerful than this and has not broken.... seems short sighted.

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

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.

You are flatly wrong. They are an option you must choose to use, not the reverse.

Even your own quote acknowledges that, as does the Monster Manual. I'll quote the entire section for you to read

Monster Manual pg 342

This appendix contains statistics for various humanoid nonplayer characters (NPCs) that adventurers might encounter during a D&D campaign, including lowly commoners and mighty archmages. These stat blocks can be used to represent both human and nonhuman NPCs.

Then right below it

Customizing NPCs

There are many easy ways to customize the NPCs in this appendix for your home campaign.


Racial Traits. You can add racial traits to an NPC. For example, a halfling druid might have a speed of 25 feet and the Lucky trait. Adding racial traits to an NPC doesn’t alter its challenge rating. For more on racial traits, see the Player’s Handbook.

I went ahead and made the "can" very easy to see, since it is an option. Also note it says "you can add" not that "you can remove", showing that this is not the default inlcuded in the statblocks of NPCs that I need to choose not to use.

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.

And back-pedaling from your statement in the "Assumptions about Character Creation" thread, where you specifically said (specifically on post #73 of that thread)

(Snipping content refering to another users post)

All it takes to be graceful is to hit a 12. Once you are getting a bonus, you are graceful, which is all that the elven race is claimed to be.

So, all it takes is to get a bonus to dex, then you are graceful.... unless you are a dwarf and then it means you have good hand-eye coordination. You'd never describe a dwarf with a 12 dex as Graceful.... because?


I also notice you completely abandoned your position that 37.5% of the population is not signifigant enough to matter.

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

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?

They should be defined however the setting defines them I suppose.

There is a fantasy setting I'd be very interested in running where Dwarves are literally carved of stone and Elves are plant people with roots and leaves.

You could play a setting where Dwarves are mad mages of the apocalypse cult while Elves are super-scientists from a moon base.

"The context of DnD" is a vast arena of space. And within that space, you can define and redefine dwarves and elves however you want. Maybe a concept will be too far and would be better as a different, unique race, maybe it won't. Hard to tell seeing how many different concepts I've seen, some working and some not.

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

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.

Um, without issue?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/star-trek-aliens-bob-mcdonald-1.4302777

What ‘Star Trek’ May Have Right—and Wrong—About Alien Life

Will we ever salute Vulcans or cuddle tribbles? An astrobiologist explores the latest thinking on the forms alien life might really take.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Why Do Some Aliens on 'Star Trek' Look Like Humans?

Turns out, science has an answer for that.

www.startrek.com

'Strange New Worlds' could fix the biggest problem with Star Trek

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds is returning to one format from TOS in the '60s. Aliens-of-the-week and planets-of-the-week will create an episodic format. But, this also means one thing: More realistic aliens.

www.inverse.com

Star Trek: 20 Things Wrong With TNG Everyone Chooses To Ignore (#3)

http://individual.utoronto.ca/allen/SNC.pdf

https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/kinema/article/view/1046/1182

And that was literally just the first page of google with a basic search. I'm sure if I actually went doing research I could find much more. Stark Trek aliens are not accepted "without issue"

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.

Those PHB edits are rather deceitful.

Turning to a random race

"Tieflings share certain racial traits as a result of their infernal descent"

And then they list those things including:

• Ability scores
• Age
• Alignment
• Size
• Speed
• Darkvision
• Fire Resistance
• Infernal Legacy spells
• Languages

Now, some of that stuff is racial and clearly a result of their lineage. Age, size, darkvision, land speed. Some of that is not like Language and Alignment.

And this is true of every single race you listed. You took the first sentence, then posted only the ASIs and ignored everything else underneath that sentence. So, unless you want to say that Half-elves Biologically know a random language from any race, or that Halflings are biologically pre-disposed to Law, then you need to recognize that not everything under that sentence is meant to be true of the race as a biological fact.

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

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.

The thing is, most of those racial abilities that would be seen as too powerful or too weak.... were already considered too powerful or too weak.

Flight is already something that many DMs ban from races. The Dragonborn racial abilities have long been considered too weak. Half-Elves have long been considered an incredibly powerful choice.

And like I challenged Northern Phoenix, give me something that you think is broken in this new paradigm, and I'm fairly certain I can find at least one official way to do the same or almost the same thing.

The weak abilities are still weak. The strong abilities are still strong. And there is no combo that can be done now that was not possible before.

 

[Maxperson]

So, one thing occurred to me while chatting with a friend. Someone asked a while back if I would have been fine with no racial ASIs at all and just increased point buy. Something like 34 points with no racial ASIs and 16's cost 11 pts.

And I answered that that would have been fine, but it would require rewriting too much of the game to get rid of everyone's ASIs. And I didn't quite realize why I was thinking that until just recently.

It is because rolling for stats is still the default. That is why they went with the floating +2/+1 instead of just removing ASIs and making a higher point but, because the default is to roll, and the only way to have the desired effect on rolled stats, is to have floating ASIs.

That's a possible reason for sure. A more probable reason is that they were and are a sacred cow. I think that even had rolling gone away(it won't because more sacred bovine), the bonuses would have stayed.

You are flatly wrong. They are an option you must choose to use, not the reverse.

Except not. 5e has specific rules that are labeled as optional rules. The rules I am quoting are default rules, not optional rules. They are optional yes, but in the same way as every default rule is "optional".

Then right below it



I went ahead and made the "can" very easy to see, since it is an option. Also note it says "you can add" not that "you can remove", showing that this is not the default inlcuded in the statblocks of NPCs that I need to choose not to use.

You can also survive a 20,000 foot fall. You can refuse to pay your taxes. You can take a dump. Try telling people that taking dumps is optional.

So, all it takes is to get a bonus to dex, then you are graceful.... unless you are a dwarf and then it means you have good hand-eye coordination. You'd never describe a dwarf with a 12 dex as Graceful.... because?

Context is your friend. When you learn to recognize it you won't make mistakes like this. Clearly since I was talking about Elves, the 12 being enough to be graceful was in the context of.....................Elves.

I also notice you completely abandoned your position that 37.5% of the population is not signifigant enough to matter.

I can't abandon a position I never took.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Reporting someone is fine. That’s what the system is for. Ditto the ignore function.

ANNOUNCING you’re going to report (or ignore) someone antagonizes other posters. DON’T DO THAT. It makes moderation more difficult.

So, use or don’t use the tools; stop with the threats.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sometimes it feels like the dev team got a memo with DIVERSITY stamped on it in big bold letters and they're just following the corporate dictate sent down from people who do not understand how D&D works to address something that may or may not be an issue.

Are you whistling for dogs? Please, let them lie. They need their sleep.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Except not. 5e has specific rules that are labeled as optional rules. The rules I am quoting are default rules, not optional rules. They are optional yes, but in the same way as every default rule is "optional".

Re-read your quotes Max.

One says that you "can" (as in it is optional) choose to build an NPC like a player character. Meaning that the rule also acknowledges that you can choose not to.

The other says that if you are building an NPC specifically to act as an adventurer to fill out a party of PCs, you should use the Character Creation Rules. Which, makes sense. You are building them specifically to fit into the party, so using the same rules as the party is logical.However, if the default was that every NPC was to be built this way... why call it out?


And, if you read the rules I quoted, it gives NPCs without using the character creation rules, and specifically labels using the racial mods as an "optional rule" As in, it is specifically labeled as optional. Like you said all optional rules are.


So, again, you are wrong here Max. There is no other way to put it.

You can also survive a 20,000 foot fall. You can refuse to pay your taxes. You can take a dump. Try telling people that taking dumps is optional.

Wow, nice strawman you built there. I'd almost be impressed if it was not a waste of both of our times.

As you say below, context is your friend Max. "Can" is used to say "it is possible". In some contexts, like falling off a mountain, it is passive. As in, you do not get to choose.

In others, like following rules, it is active, as in, it is a choice that you have the ability to make.

And, even further, when the rules themselves give a choice, for example on rolling hp or taking the average result, the word "can" is being used to show that both methods are acceptable.

Context is your friend. When you learn to recognize it you won't make mistakes like this. Clearly since I was talking about Elves, the 12 being enough to be graceful was in the context of.....................Elves.

I can't abandon a position I never took.

Yeah, I know the context.

DEFCON said that not all elves are the most graceful race, even with their +2, because some have a lower score than other races.

Your response was "All it takes to be graceful is to hit a 12. Once you are getting a bonus, you are graceful, which is all that the elven race is claimed to be."

So, let us break this down, backwards.

The Elven Race has claimed to be Graceful
The Elven Race has succeeded in proving that claim
How have they succeeded? By getting any bonus to their modifier.
Because, all it takes to be graceful is to hit a 12 in the stat.


You were not declaring that all an Elf needs to be graceful is a 12, because that wouldn't have addressed DEFCONs point. You were declaring that a 12 was sufficient to be graceful, and Elves got that much, so they were graceful.

This was your point. And remains so, even if it is inconvenient.


But, let us assume just for the sake of argument that elves and elves alone can be graceful with a 12 Dex. Because reasons.

You said that a 12 or above stat for a dwarf in dexterity can't be grace, it is hand-eye coordination. So, lets work with this. Dwarves are good with weapons, specifically two thrown weapons. They are also smiths, miners, and masons. All of these activities require high hand-eye coordination.

Dex for dwarves represents hand-eye coordination, so using your logic that a dwarf can never be graceful (because reasons) and instead a dwarve's dexterity score represents hand-eye coordination, and that is something that it looks like the majority of dwarves would have a lot of, then dwarves should also get a +2 Dex.

 

[Oofta]

That the official game already allows things that are more powerful than this rule.

You are allowed your preferences and all, but saying that this rule will break the game as a whole, when the game has options that are much more powerful than this and has not broken.... seems short sighted.

There you go, making stuff up again. I've never said the new rule would "break" the game. For that matter, while some others have expressed more dislike for the rule, I'm not sure if anyone has said that it will break the game despite your apparent need to exaggerate other people's positions.

I think the new rule takes away more from the game than it adds. That's all.

 

[Oofta]

Are you whistling for dogs? Please, let them lie. They need their sleep.

Sorry if that was a poor choice of wording, it was not my intent to whistle, dog or otherwise.

 

[Helldritch]

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.

They will. They did in 1e, 2e and even in 3.xed. 4ed was another matter but yet, many DMs that were playing 4ed has been "encourage" to use PHB2 and other subsequent books.

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.

At which point they become legends.

 

[Helldritch]

I think the new rule takes away more from the game than it adds. That's all.

It takes away a lot more than meets the eye.
And the repercussions will be far greater than many here are anticipating.

Remember the thread about the resting rule and spell versatility? It has apparently been taken down, removed as being to disruptive. Yet, many defended the position that is was perfectly valid. When you take time to coldly analyse something, you see both the good and the and the bad. I have the chance to have 12 players and access to many more with friendly DMs in my area. We all agreed that the spell swap on long rest was way to unbalancing.

Just as the rule for floating ASI is just making things even worse. Already other DM have shown me that half-elves will be the rage as they will be the best at everything. And this is without me telling them. But they do playtest too.

Removing negative ability bonuses would have been more than enough.

 

[Oofta]

It takes away a lot more than meets the eye.
And the repercussions will be far greater than many here are anticipating.

Remember the thread about the resting rule and spell versatility? It has apparently been taken down, removed as being to disruptive. Yet, many defended the position that is was perfectly valid. When you take time to coldly analyse something, you see both the good and the and the bad. I have the chance to have 12 players and access to many more with friendly DMs in my area. We all agreed that the spell swap on long rest was way to unbalancing.

Just as the rule for floating ASI is just making things even worse. Already other DM have shown me that half-elves will be the rage as they will be the best at everything. And this is without me telling them. But they do playtest too.

Removing negative ability bonuses would have been more than enough.

I kind of thought it would be a split - mountain dwarves for any class that could benefit from medium armor, half-elves for everything else. Of course the prejudice against being short runs deep so you may be right.

I doubt I will use this in my home game in any case. The other thing that bothers me is the complete lack of surveys, UA, any attempt to get feedback from the community at large for a change this fundamental.