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

[Scott Christian]

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 sorry, I must have missed a post or something. How is the argument is weak? (Please read that in the most neutral of ways. I am curious because maybe you have evidence or have read something the others haven not.)

 

[Oofta]

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.

Oh, absolutely I see issues with the change. Some posters have even admitted that in all likelihood they, and several people they know will only play mountain dwarves and half-elves in games that use this rule.

So you haven't used the word broken, I know I haven't. I don't remember anyone using it, but even if they did having a "broken" build does not equate to a "broken" game. A few people are more adamant about the negative aspects of the change than I am.

I just get tired of the claims that everyone who thinks this change is a bad idea are claiming that it "destroys" or "breaks" the game somehow and that we are not aware that we don't have to adopt the rule in our home games. Or that somehow you can counter the argument effectively by just saying "stop making pathetic arguments"

Now, if someone can quote a post where someone else says that it "breaks", "destroys" or that we must* use it in out home games I'll politely disagree with that poster.

*Some people have made a point that many DMs will face significant pressure to adopt the rule whether they like it or not. I'm not one of those, but I agree that it can be an issue for some.

 

[Azzy]

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

I wasn't counting 3.5 as a proper edition when I made that statement, but in that case, yes, it would be a tie. But that still results in the fact that ASIs are not an immutable tradition that is a sacred cow to D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wasn't counting 3.5 as a proper edition when I made that statement, but in that case, yes, it would be a tie. But that still results in the fact that ASIs are not an immutable tradition that is a sacred cow to D&D.

There might be two ways to look at this. Traditions take a long time to destroy and create. They also take participation or enjoyment of the participation. It might just be the number of years in a row ASI's have been around, and how people have participated (and maybe enjoyed) ASI's that make it a tradition.
I am not saying you are incorrect. Just saying there might be more than one way to look at it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, this ought to be good. Since you believe that monstrous races are the same as character races, why is it that you think that they didn't put monstrous races in with character races again?

Well let's break this down.

Where in Volo's are those races? In Chapter 2: Character Races

hmm, that's odd, I thought they were separated from character races. Doesn't look that way. But, they are in their own section of that chapter. And they get less detail in lore, names, ect. Why might that be?

Which races are they again? Bugbear, Hobgoblin, Goblin, Kobold, Orc and Yuan-Ti?

Hmm, you know, those sound like they might have had entire sections written about them. Sections like Kobolds: Little Dragons, Yuan-Ti: Snake People, Orcs: The Godsworn, and Goblinoids: The Conquering Host.


Now, I'm not a layout expert, but I think, just maybe, that they decided they weren't going to reprint a whole lot of information that they covered far more deeply just a chapter earlier. Seems like a waste of space. But, all of the other races needed the traditional format, including their lore. So, since these six options could be given rapid fire, and they all are generally from cultures and groups considered atangonists and so face some similar challenges, thye got their own section in the chapter.

So, why are those options in the Character Races section at all instead of the Monster Lore section? Because, they are Character options, specifically races that players might be able to choose for their characters.

You might even refer to them as... character races.


You may even notice that they did not follow this format for Mordenkainen's tome of foes, which gave us additional Tiefling Subraces, the Eladrin, Sea Elves, Shadar-Kai, Duergar, Githyanki, Githzerai, Svirfneblin. Despite the fact that Shadar-Kai, Duergar and Githyanki are often just as violent and unaccepted as the Goblins or Kobolds. Why didn't they get a separate section?

Because each one was based in a chapter about the associated races, and unlike Volo's, there was nothing outside of those races being presented.

Oh, and of course finally, we can look to the Player's Handbook, and note that Drow are an option presented under Elves.

So, unless you would like to try and convince me that somehow Yuan-ti and Orcs are more monstrous than Drow... I think it is safe to assume that character options are character options, and Volo's only made a seperate category because of layout and formatting, not because these races were somehow categorically different to include.

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

The first character I made was a Mountain Dwarf Warlock so that I could get the medium armour. I wanted to be a genie warlock and it saved my Invocations for other things giving me more power.

And you just as easily could have played a Hexblade and gotten medium armor and shields, which is more powerful than just going straight mountain dwarf (+2 AC from shield) and still saved those invocations.

Warlocks in medium armor are already a thing without needing Mountain Dwarves.

Actually yes. The lore behind halflings in the Forgotten Realms is that the god that created them made them all naturally lucky. That informed the races abilities in 5e. The MM specifically says that to modify the stat blocks for things like commoner you should add racial traits like lucky to give them the flavour of the race.

It also says specifically that that is an option, and that you can use the stat blocks to represent the NPC of that race as they are written. I've quoted it multiple times by this point.

Here’s the deal, everything in those stat blocks are partially based on balance and partially on lore. Races needed to have nearly equal numbers of stat modifiers and abilities to balance the game. So some races were given a bonus to a stat that they might not be particularly “good” at just to make sure they had the same bonuses as other races. so while you can point towards some aspects of a race and say “look, that’s not lore based exactly”, that doesn’t mean none of it is low based.

Mechanics and lore go hand in hand though. If a race gets +2 to int people will think of it as the smart race no matter how many times the text says otherwise. So the DM doesn’t really have full control as to whether the lore changes or not. People come to your game with all sorts of impressions from various D&D books and novels and even lore from outside of D&D. Those impressions don’t change immediately when you tell them to ignore them. It isn’t a black and white situation. Each thing that changes in the mechanics shifts perceptions of players and that changes the lore.

If you want to dig back up into the thread, you can look into the massively long discussion I had about Gold Dwarves and Hill dwarves.

TL;DR, Gold Dwarves use the Hill dwarf stats, but the Mountain Dwarf culture and their lore is more similiar to the mountain dwarves.

It was only a single example, but then more recently I showed that just using 3d6 we can show that over a third of all dwarves of any type have as high or higher of a dex score than elves. 50% (give or take) of humans too. Which brings into the question of why the lore tells us Elves are very graceful compared to other races. A third of all races with dex bonus are as graceful as your average elf. The lore does not support these mechanics, but it is true if we run the numbers.

And you yourself are claiming that some of these numbers don't match the lore, but they needed to be put in for "balance reasons". Which means that if the designers are telling us floating ASIs are balanced, then it shouldn't matter.


But I do agree with you, players will come to the game with preconcieved notions of what the races are or are not, based on their media exposure. So, why should I tell them that playing an Orc Shaman like they do in Warcraft means they have to take a penalty to being a druid, because orcs aren't suited to those roles? While at the same time telling them that Orcs are also highly religious and superstitious in DnD, but that again, they don't make great clerics.

What benefit am I getting from not moving these stats, when they contradict the established lore, prevent opening new, logical paths for lore, and the only issue is that certain combinations will be less rare?

Stat bonuses are too important. An increase to your con modifier gives you more hitpoints and even one hitpoint can make the difference between living and dying especially at first level but it is 20 more hitpoints over the lifetime of your character.

As a Mountain Dwarf you can get a 17 and a 17 and that might not be more useful than a 17 and a 16. But at level 4 you now have 2 18s and they either have 18/17 or 19/16. Or it’ll free up enough points in point buy to increase your Dex to 14 to max out your medium armour, reducing all the damage you take, increasing your most valuable save, and your initiative bonus while also bringing your con up to an even number for more hitpoints. The extra one point is always enough to put you one even stat ahead of anyone without it (though it might take you to 4th level to get ahead).

I’ll take those benefits over most of the other racial features, most which are have an actual effect rarely.

17/17 is only possible with point buy, which does change things.

But, let me play this out for you.

Mountain Dwarf Rogue level five 18/18 dex Con, attacks with a rapier for 1d8+SA+4, 48 hp, AC 16

High Elf Rogue level five 18/16 Dex Con, attacks with rapier plus booming blade for 2d8+SA+4, 43 hp, 16 AC

I have added 4.5 damage, minimum, to every single attack I make, in exchange for 5 hp. By level 20 when you have 20 more hp than me, I have 13.5 more damage on every strike, minimum again.

Sure, if you value Constitution very highly, then this is an easy choice, you take the extra the hp. But maybe I value the damage more?

Or maybe I want a tabaxi, because I value the extra +30/60/180 feet of movement more.

Or maybe I want to play an Aasimar, because flight, light and healing on top of some extra damage is something I value a lot.

Or maybe I want to really go for some crazy battlefield control, so I go bugbear to get free stealth, +2d6 sneak attack once a combat, and natural reach so that I can kit more effectively and never get hit in the first place. A Bugbear assassin could get some truly insane damage numbers on the first round of combat.

Thing is? Medium armor on a rogue isn't the best. Without Medium Armor Mastery you are equally effective in the long run sticking with light armor. So, this really comes down to that single extra point of con.... and maybe I take the tough feat and get that exact same health bonus. Or maybe I do something completely different.

I think it is clear that you have a preference. And I understand and respect your preference. But, if we are arguing about whether +1 hp per level is better than Glasya Tielfings ability to get Minor Illusion, Disguise Self and Invisibility? Then I think we are in a wonderful place in the design. Because now it is fully about playstyle preferences.

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

I agree with you. D&D responded to it. It was a good thing.

If we look at the timeline of when and why they responded, kudos to them. In fact, WotC, thank you for responding.
But again, I point out that Star Trek hasn't responded because for some reason, the majority of the fan base has an easier time accepting that their races might be smarter or stronger than another. I don't know why this is. But it seems to be the case.

Could be because Star Trek is less interactive. The fans of Star Trek are just watching, fans of DnD are participating.

I am not talking about lucky. I believe you know this.

I am not talking about language. I believe you know this.

If you want to play the exception to the rule game... ugh...

For every race it lists the higher bonus first. In fact, in its pseudo-alphabetical order, it lists ASI's first. I am guessing because from an editing standpoint, they feel that is what players are most interested in. It is also why they list them in a separate chart prior to the chapter on races. It is clear the author's intended these ability score increases to be innate. The language they chose relays this.

You were talking about racial traits. Those things fall under that category.

The authors meant for the racial scores to be tied to races, yes, they outright state that "Every race increases one or more of a character's ability scores."

They also outright state that your language is tied to your race "By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages."

Both of these quotes are from pg 17 of the PHB. So, writing a language is "by virtue of your race" but you aren't talking about language, because logically that can't be innate to a race... but a race increasing an ability score must be innate?

Here you go. They are just for PC's, now.

Again, if we look at the timeline of when they decided to try and alter this, we get an understanding of why. I don't think they are lying, (PS - I even stated they were not) but they certainly could have been more upfront. Such as saying: "Well, we reflected back on this and decided some of our conceptions of race needed to change. So we are changing the language of their stat bonuses to be more inclusive to culture, and we are going to make it just for the PC's." But they didn't. They did it the corporate way, they rebranded. Which is fine. They are a business. But when they wrote the PHB, the language indicates this is not the case. I gave you a literal sentence that shows this, and if they meant otherwise, they would have written it a different way. And, they not only did it once, but twice.

Again, I do not fault them or think it is bad they changed it. Never have. But I have pointed to you the numerous examples in this thread about how the changes might effect play.

And I have shown you multiple sentences where it is possible to see that they indicated it was the case.

But let us take a step back.Let us assume for a moment you are right. Then they changed it to be for PCs only, and that is fine, but it might effect play a little.

Now, let us assume for a moment I am right. They did not change it, but people misunderstood and now they know it was meant for PCs only, and that is fine, but it might effect play a little.

What's the difference? One is that the writers were misunderstood, because it didn't really matter at the time how it was defined. And the other is that they changed their mind... which doesn't alter anything. So, what value is there is proving that the Racial ASI's used to apply to the entire race? What does that gain us?

You read my last post, right? I have never said it wasn't tied to lore. I have never said it didn't matter. I said the opposite. You disagreed. Maybe if I place this in logic form it will be clearer for you and me:
Static ASI ----> Fewer archetypes ----> More definable races
Floating ASI ----> More diverse archetypes ----> Less definable races

Here is a line from the PHB:
"These traits sometimes dovetail with the capabilities of certain classes (see step 2). For example, the racial traits of lightfoot halflings make them exceptional rogues, and high elves tend to be powerful wizards. Sometimes playing against type can be fun, too. Half-orc paladins and mountain dwarf wizards, for example, can be unusual but memorable characters" (Pg. 11).

You see, even WotC, at the time of writing the PHB, acknowledges these archetypes and how they are better suited for a class, thus allowing them to talk about playing "against type," and pointing out how it can be "memorable." Again, look at the language they use. It is distinctly tying races to archetypes to make either A) powerful builds or B) unusual and memorable builds.

Sorry, I was talking about the thread in general, not your discussion with me in specific.

And, I've never denied that they were creating archetypes. They have never denied that. But, now we are changing the mechanics so that playing against type doesn't come with a penalty. And I know some people seem to think that a decision without a penalty is a useless and empty thing (not you in specific, just people in general), but I disagree that I need to be penalized for one choice and rewarded for a second in a game.

Because, let us be clear for a second, you are heavily rewarded for playing into certain archetypes. A Lightfoot Halfling rogue has better mobility in crowded areas, better ability to hide, better dexterity for all of their abilities, and better dice manipulation. All of which are great for a rogue.

So getting different bonuses like hitting harder, extra skills, darkvision, and the ability to not die once a day shouldn't need to be penalized, when I'm already also losing out on other abilities any rogue would love to have.

This is where I believe the disagreement occurs. In that third step; more or less definable races. (Since races are tied to lore.)

The question is how much. You and others say it won't change, others say it will. That last sentence of yours is contradictory, and if you were given that, yeah, I can see how that would become frustrating. I have stated that I feel the DM, especially as the game has grown, doesn't really have control. He/She is more of a moderator trying to balance the table. Many at the table want different things. So I fall on the side of - it doesn't always matter what the DM wants, sometimes there is compromise and appeasement. And during those times, much of the DM's previous work might become less usable. (And as a DM, I feel we can all sympathize with that situation.)

Sure, but that has always been the case.

Players might come with the Piety system from Theros. Or the Stronghold and Follower's Rules from Colville. Or the Backgrounds from Ravnica.

Heck, some DMs see Dragonborn and Tielfings in this light, or feats like GWM or SS.

If this has been something DMs have had to navigate since the beginning of the game... then this is nothing new. And if you want to argue that this is bad, because if there is so much DMs need to navigate then why add more? Well, because new content is always going to be added to the game, until the game is retired.

And every time a new option is added, at least one person declares that "this will never see use at my table" and that DM is always going to have to contend with players who want to use that option, and seek to find a compromise.

IT is just the nature of the beast.

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

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.

Okay, let us also acknowledge that at least one poster has also said it would destroy the game and make all of the races meaningless blobs. (Helldritch, in particular)

So let us look at a more moderate version.

1) More people will play mountain dwarves and half-elves.

2) Race is less of a determining factor in what class you pick.


Neither of those sound bad to me. In fact, number 1 is a completely neutral statement.

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

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.

Sudden? I've been using the Gith as a counter to the Mountain Dwarf argument since the beginning. People have been declaring "Mountain Dwarf wizard" as this new, incredibly powerful combo because you can have a 16 intelligence and medium armor.

Well, the Gith had 16 intelligence, and medium armor. If that alone was enough to make it so that in the future all we will see are Mountain Dwarf Wizards, then it should have already happened with Githyanki Wizards.

It hasn't.

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.

Okay, but my example was not predicated on only talking about AL, and since the point has always been 16 intelligence on a wizard and Medium armor, and you don't need Tasha's to pull that off with the Gith... then this should still apply.

Especially since most of the most powerful wizard options are in the PHB anyways. If 16 Intelligence and Medium Armor, with the PHB options was truly the most optimal thing for wizards, so much so that everyone will flock to create it... then they would have been doing so for years now.

Also Tasha+PHB also misses out on some good stuff from Xanathars, which has some incredible spells and subclasses.

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

As your asterik's notes, different people have been claiming different things.

But, even if we just mean optimal, then we are still looking at the same situation. 16 Intelligence. Medium Armor Proficiency, from level 1, on a Wizard. If that was optimal, then it would have been chosen consistently since the introduction of the Githyanki in 2018

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 believe I straight up said "Dragon Sorcerer" which is why I was not assuming mage armor.

And, I certainly was never saying it was inconsequential, merely pointing out that this "everyone can get medium armor" ignores how many AC options there were already.

A Standard array Half Elf Dragon Sorcerer could get 16 Cha, 16 Con, 14 Dex. Giving them an AC of 15 by level one (dragon scales is 13+Dex mod (2)) with the current PHB rules as written.

If the Mountain Dwarf did point buy to get 16/16/14, then medium armor would eventually give them an AC of 17 from Half-Plate (with disadvantage on stealth)

That is +2 AC. And that is the biggest effect on potential AC I could find.

Wizards? Could have played a Gith and gotten the same armor.
Warlocks? Could have played Hexblade and gotten the same armor.
Bards? Could have played Valor and gotten the same armor.
Druids? Already have medium armor
Clerics? Already have medium armor.

Maybe you think I'm being dismissive, but you seemed to make your claim that "everyone getting medium armor" was somehow this grand, sweeping change to the system. But it isn't. There were a lot of ways to get decent AC as a full-caster before this.

 

[Argyle King]

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.

I think Changelings benefit from the (in my view) powerful ability to effectively look like anyone. In some ways, I might argue that it's a more powerful innate ability than flight.

---------------------
Edit: This isn't related to what I quoted.

FWIW, I'm 100% fine with not using ASIs as a part of races. However, I do think that eliminating them and approaching races -which are a fundamental building block of the game, character generation, and part of the user interface for the game- from a different design mentality does (I would posit) mean re-visiting other parts of the game from a different design mentality (influenced by those aforementioned changes).

 

[Remathilis]

I think Changelings benefit from the (in my view) powerful ability to effectively look like anyone. In some ways, I might argue that it's a more powerful innate ability than flight.

You're probably right, but that is not the discussion at hand. We only compare asi because they are the only important part of picking a race.*

* Or so some people say.

 

[Oofta]

You're probably right, but that is not the discussion at hand. We only compare asi because they are the only important part of picking a race.*

* Or so some people say.

We've had posters who say that it is the only thing that's important to them and to several of their friends. We have people saying they would never play a dwarven wizard before this because they couldn't get a 16 intelligence at level 1.

Might not the the only reason to play a race for some people (it's not for me) but it is a primary limiting factor for a lot of people. I would suspect for a majority of people it's a major consideration.

 

[Argyle King]

You're probably right, but that is not the discussion at hand. We only compare asi because they are the only important part of picking a race.*

* Or so some people say.

I disagree with those people.

I do believe that ASIs are an important part of picking a race. The value of being able to move them around is valuable because the best ASIs for a class can now be combined with the best innate abilities.

Completely made up example not based on actual rules: If my choices are +2 and immunity to sleep spells (which I cannot easily gain) OR +2 and an extra tool proficiency (which I can easily gain through down time,) I feel that the first choice is obviously better.

I'm supportive of re-thinking how races are designed. I'm very supportive of reducing the amount of +N bonuses in a game which claims to wanted "bounded accuracy" and instead focusing on (what I think are) cool abilities. (Strangely, I now find myself applying my general views toward D&D magic items to D&D races.) But I believe that changing the underlying design philosophy of one of the game's key pieces should be accompanied by changes in philosophy and design in other parts of the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm sorry, I must have missed a post or something. How is the argument is weak? (Please read that in the most neutral of ways. I am curious because maybe you have evidence or have read something the others haven not.)

One of us did & I'm not sure how many pages back it goes before I gave up tracking it back but the argument that the tasha's shuffling of racial stuff will ruin the game because "everyone" will be doing the most optimal thing & killing racial diversity is the weak argument. Doesn't really matter who was making it at this point.