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

[glass]

Coincidentally, it is the opinion of Keith Baker that elves (and half-elves) in Eberron are born innately speaking Elvish as a mystical connection to their fey heritage.

Did he? Damn. My homebrew setting (Pelhorin) does something similar. It does have a couple of features inspired by Eberron, but this was not one of them.

For the most part Pelhorin separates out cultural things like languages from species, but Elven and Draconic are somewhat special (in that they still exist). Elves and Dragonborn do not automatically know them, but they always have the option to learn them regardless of culture (true dragons do get Draconic automatically).

I just get tired of the reductio ad absurdum around here.

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly reasonable way of pointing out flaws in an opposing argument, by showing how if applied consistantly it leads to unreasonable conclusions. If you are tired of seeing it, stop making arguments with such flaws.

I'd like to point out (again) that more editions of D&D (OD&D and all five editions—'77, '81, '83, '91, '94—of "basic" D&D) had no ASIs than those that did and they are thus not necessary to make elves elfy or dwarves dwarfy.

By my count that makes six, and 1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5, 4e, 5e is also six, so its a tie. [/nitpick]

_
glass.

 

[Oofta]

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly reasonable way of pointing out flaws in an opposing argument, by showing how if applied consistantly it leads to unreasonable conclusions. If you are tired of seeing it, stop making arguments with such flaws.

Huh? No. It's not. Taking an argument to an extreme is a well known fallacy and one that is used regularly here. My conclusion is that it takes away more from the game than it adds and that many people will now play dwarves or half elves because a lot of people look at numbers first (which at least one poster admitted to). Race has less meaning now than it did before.

That is different from the ludicrous statements that it's being argued that it will "destroy" the game or that the only races you will see are mountain dwarves and half elves.

 

[Aldarc]

Did he? Damn. My homebrew setting (Pelhorin) does something similar. It does have a couple of features inspired by Eberron, but this was not one of them.

For the most part Pelhorin separates out cultural things like languages from species, but Elven and Draconic are somewhat special (in that they still exist). Elves and Dragonborn do not automatically know them, but they always have the option to learn them regardless of culture (true dragons do get Draconic automatically).

He discusses his views on the elvish language in Eberron in his blog post here.

 

[glass]

Huh? No. It's not. Taking an argument to an extreme is a well known fallacy and one that is used regularly here.

Not so.

EDIT: Thanks for the link @Aldarc.

_
glass.

 

[Oofta]

Fine, you haven't said that, but others most certainly have. People have mentioned "broken combos" repeatedly which is why I keep showing people that nothing we are now getting is actually broken or even new.





"any class that could benefit from medium armor"

ie Rogues, Wizards and Sorcerers (Warlock's have hexblade and potenially that new heavy armor invocation) . And Wizards could already get medium armor from Githyanki. So really just Sorcerers and Rogues... and Dragon Sorcerers have a native ability that lets them get an 18 AC if they decided to invest in Dex. So really just rogues? Nah, I'll let Sorcerers stay, 20 Dex on a sorcerer is a bit much to ask. Though it isn't too much for a Rogue, who would then match half plate.. so only sorcerers.

So, Sorcerers will get a +2 AC from their normal. That is it.

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



hmm, here is that thing I keep getting told no one is saying. Strange how it keeps showing up.

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




Interesting, we are now saying that there are PC races for players to chose under character races, and Monster Races that players can choose under races.... and that those are allowed to work differently because clearly PC races are designed for players to play, unlike those Monster races that players can play.

By the way, what is the definition of PC in DnD again?

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




So.. an issue is only real if they change something in response to it?

Good news. DnD they changed something in response to it. The issue was real.



And all other halfings are about 3 ft tall and weigh 40 lbs. All halflings do mature around the age of 20 and live to around 150 as their natural lifespan.

But does that mean that every halfling in the entire multiverse is lucky? Actually no. Because I can use the commoner statblock to represent a halfling farmer per the rules in the MM and I don't need to include Lucky. I can, but I do not have to to make him a halfling.

What about speaking common? Does every single halfling across all time and space take the time to learn the Common Trade Tongue? Well, common sense tells me that... no. Even in countries with a heavy emphasis on learning foreign languages, you have people who might not have learned a second language.

So, some of these things apply to every halfling. Some of these things don't. Is +2 Dexterity in the first category or the second? Well, it could be either. It depends on what +2 dexterity means.

And, while you are saying it would be a "mature step" to say that they mean what you want them to have meant... the designers themselves have said they meant it for PCs only. So, your "mature step" would involve me calling them liars. And, since when I look at all three core books together, it seems fairly blatant that they did not mean for the PC racial stuff to be universally applied to members of the race no matter what, I think it is fair to assume that they are telling the truth.



I did discuss how the lore will not change. I was told that I was clearly wrong, because of the ASIs being tied to the lore. Which when I dug into it... I was told the lore doesn't matter. Right around the time I was showing fairly clearly that those ASIs were not really tied to solid lore.

I've also shown that the lore won't change because the DM can choose not to change it, since they still and always have complete control of the NPCs. I was told that I was wrong, and that the lore would change despite the DM, or that I was wrong because the DM has always had this power so still having it doesn't change anything?

I mean, I've discussed a lot. For a long time at this point. And it keeps coming back to shifting goal posts and being straight up ignored.

Not sure why I should abandon this position in favor of just getting jerked around some more.

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




Why?

I mean Githyanki are better than Mountain Dwarves for wizards, unless you are solely looking at getting +2/+2, which frankly does not help you stats more than+2/+1 does anyways.

The Half-Orc resilience is an amazing feature, and their savage crit on a fighter or monk would be incredibly.

And, as I showed above, medium armor is able to be achieved by nearly every single class in the game. It is a meaningless ability for 10/13 classes.

So, really, why Mountain Dwarves? What are you getting that is so good?


Edit:



So... it is literally the ability to get a 17/16 instead of 16/16?

Man, that doesn't change your stats. You still need an ASI to hit 18, so unless you happen to have a half feat you really want, that gives you zero benefit in your build.

Half Elf is a little more understandable, considering that they can get their third stat up by a +1... but that is their tertiary stat. I'd give up a +1 to my third most important stat for booming blade on a rogue any day of the week (High Elf) or the ability to more easily hide (Halfling or Wood Elf) or the ability to guarentee surviving an attack (orcish resilience)

Or how about a level 1 feat?

There are s many options that I can easily give up a +1 to my third most important stat.

First, why the sudden obsession with Gith? If you use point buy, two +2s is better than a +2 and +1 since every + to an ability score costs 2 points or more.

Second, if you are playing in AL you won't be able to use Tasha's and Gith because you can only use PHB +1.

Third, you do realize there's a difference between people saying that a certain combination is optimal* doesn't mean it "breaks the game".

Fourth, interesting. A +1 to primary ability score justifies this change, but a "mere" +2 to AC is inconsequential. I'm also not sure where you're getting that unless you're assuming mage armor and discounting that a spell is a limited resource. Getting 15 - 20 AC with no spell and no dex mod is far better than a 10 AC. A mountain dwarf caster can allocate points to something other than dex, doesn't need to reserve a slot for mage armor and will still have a better AC than most wizards.

I could go on about the rest but ... eh.

*I haven't seen anyone use the word "broken", but honestly I don't have enough time to read every word in detail.

 

[tetrasodium]

Huh? No. It's not. Taking an argument to an extreme is a well known fallacy and one that is used regularly here. My conclusion is that it takes away more from the game than it adds and that many people will now play dwarves or half elves because a lot of people look at numbers first (which at least one poster admitted to). Race has less meaning now than it did before.

That is different from the ludicrous statements that it's being argued that it will "destroy" the game or that the only races you will see are mountain dwarves and half elves.

your argument is extremely weak & rooted in the requirement that others accept some alleged certainty that is extremely questionable at best. Because the core of your argument is so weak you shouldn't expect deep dives into it simply due to the fact that doing so would require accepting your faulty alleged certainty. Make a better argument instead of complaining about it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm not so sure. Part of the issue is that people feel penalized for picking unoptimized race class combos over optimized ones. I doubt that now that any race can be optimal, they will opt for only the two extreme cases.

Put another way: right now half-elves are optimized for charisma classes (sorcerer, bard, warlock, paladin). If your theory is true, no other charisma race (tiefling, aasimar, changeling or any of the +1 races) would see any play when half-elf is an option.

Aren't Changelings the most "optimised" Charisma-based race pre-Tasha's?

I see the opposite. Optimizers might gravitate towards them, but casuals will gravitate towards whatever "cool" race they like without regards of if they race has good asi for it. People who wanted to play a half-demon, a dragon-man, or a a bird person will override someones desire to have a net +4 ability mod. Especially if they get to put a 16 wherever they want now. People will still look at other racial abilities, appearance and outlook, and other factors.

I think your half-elf/mountain dwarf characters will be the same players who read color-coded guides for classes on the internet, not the players who wanted to play a goblin bard.

However, given the pressure to ensure that every race can max any primary stat at character creation, it seems that there are enough optimisers around to drive significant changes to the game.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

your argument is extremely weak & rooted in the requirement that others accept some alleged certainty that is extremely questionable at best. Because the core of your argument is so weak you shouldn't expect deep dives into it simply due to the fact that doing so would require accepting your faulty alleged certainty. Make a better argument instead of complaining about it.

I'm going to have to agree with Oofta here: Stating that these changes are going to destroy the game, or that when they are introduced the only races you will see are mountain dwarves and half elves is pretty ridiculous.

I mean if you actually have a counterargument, rather than just grand claims of how weak that statement was, feel free to make it.

 

[Remathilis]

Aren't Changelings the most "optimised" Charisma-based race pre-Tasha's?

However, given the pressure to ensure that every race can max any primary stat at character creation, it seems that there are enough optimisers around to drive significant changes to the game.

Debatable. Changelings still have a net +3 vs half-elf's +4, though they do have the ability to stack it (something I personally disagree with, but acknowledge is RAW).

The pressure to begin with a 16 =/= to the pressure to get +4 at the expense of everything else. The people who want to play a high elf bard with a 16 Cha aren't going to decide "screw it, I'll play a mountain dwarf instead because they have two +2s." Sure, some will gravitate towards the two corner cases (like MO above) but I don't think AL is going to be flooded with half-elf or mountain dwarf PCs at the cost of every other race.

 

[Scott Christian]

I haven't seen anyone use the word "broken", but honestly I don't have enough time to read every word in detail.

I used the word optimal. I used the word sub-optimal. And I used min/max. I defined all of them.

I know it's not you who took it out of context Oofta. I am just clarifying that I used them and defined them with my own personal definitions as a reference for anyone that assumes it means broken.