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

[Don Durito]

This is a great argument for removing racial ASIs all together.

You could. But a half-elf would still be a better sorcerer or a wizard (or anything non-melee) than a half-orc.

More it's an argument for completing rethinking how races are designed all-together (if flexibility for all races to be equally good at all classes is the goal), rather than the half-baked approach we appear to be getting.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's not bad that we'll see more mountain dwarves and half-elves at the table. IMHO it's a loss to the game that being a mountain dwarf or half elf has been stripped of some of the last things that gave them a unique identity.

So, it isn't bad that we will see more of them.

The bad thing is that fewer of them will be Mountain Dwarf Fighters, because you feel like that is part of their identity and that seeing more Mountain Dwarf Wizards, Bards, Rogues, Warlocks, ect, means that Mountain Dwarves will lose part of their identity.


Maybe this will help you understand my position a bit better.


In 6 years of running 5e, with multiple campaigns as a player and a DM, I have never once seen a Mountain Dwarf fighter. In fact, I've rarely seen a dwarf at all, and they were all hill dwarves when I did see them.

The Fighters I have seen? Predominantly human. In fact, other than my Half-Orc fighter and another Ravenite Fighter... I can't think of a single non-human fighter off the top of my head. Wait, there was an Elf Arcane Archer.


I understand that at your table, in your experience, Mountain Dwarves were almost always fighters. But to me not only has that not been the case, but if I could choose to see fewer of the most common combos at my tables, I'd be ecstatic. I want more dwarves at all, I don't care if they want to be a class other than fighter, I just want some dwarves at my table.

I'm hoping this opens the game up, to allow for things I haven't seen multiple times already.

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

How is it not a problem if one race is just flat out better across the board then others? It's breaking a fundamental design goal which is parity.

I mean isn't this the exact same problem that we're trying to solve by lifting these restrictions? If it's an issue that my Half-Orc can't be as a good a Sorcerer as a Half-Elf due to his race (because he doesn't get a Charisma bonus), then the issue remains if, after adding the flexibility, he still can't be (And now may not even be as good at the things he was originally supposed to be good at like being a Fighter).

I thought we were trying to solve the whole issues of "well I really want to be a Half-Orc Bard, but they're really not the best for that and my rational brain is telling me the most logical thing is to be a Half-Elf."

But what is it about Half Elves that is suddenly making them better at everything? The only argument I can see is that +1 to your third stat. Which is nice, but it is your tertiary stat. Your "rational brain" is on a bit of a hair-trigger if not getting a bonus to your third most important stat is becoming a deal breaker for you.

 

[Don Durito]

But what is it about Half Elves that is suddenly making them better at everything? The only argument I can see is that +1 to your third stat. Which is nice, but it is your tertiary stat. Your "rational brain" is on a bit of a hair-trigger if not getting a bonus to your third most important stat is becoming a deal breaker for you.

Have you been reading this thread? I've explained it twice already. Someone else went through it at least once.

Unless there's something different beyond what we've been told they completely mechanically obscelesce the variant humant for one. They get literally everything the variant humant gets plus Darkvision and an extra skill proficiency and fey ancestry.

Whereas the Half-Orc gets features that make them good melee warriors.

So a Haf-Orc Wizard could have a +2 Int and +1 somewhere else, Darkvision, Intimidation proficiency, and some melee features.
A Half-Elf Wizard could have +2 Int and +1 to two other scores, two skill proficiencies of their choice, Darkvision and fey ancestry.

The latter is still clearly the optimal choice.

And if you're stating that the differences don't matter because they're small, then they always were.

Either small differences matter so much we should change the rules to avoid them mattering or they don't. (In which case why are we changing the rules?)

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If you can't see the difference between Yuan-ti and Drow, there's not much point in trying to convince you.

The Monstrous Races are explicitly for the DM who wants to include them. Players don't have a right to expect that they will be allowed.

 

[Scott Christian]

And the part where it says they get traits "part and parcel with Dwarven nature" which would read innate, we get (in order) the ability score increase, Age, Alignment, Size, Speed, Darkvision, Resilience, Combat Training, Tool Proficiency, Stone Cunning and Language.

At no point do the rules call some of these traits "innate" and other not. They do not say you are born with some of them and not others. They do not say they are "derived from ancestry" and not others.

If you want to argue that by saying that the traits are "part and parcel with Dwarven nature" that the designers were explicitly telling us that the +2 Con was something dwarves are born with, then you at the same time must say that dwarves are born speaking dwarvish, knowing how to work a belllows in a forge, and how to wield a battleaxe. Because the designers did not in fact seperate these traits, some into innate racial traits and some into non-innate racial traits.

Which, leads us to some of these traits being innate, others not, and none of it labeled. Some are obvious like age and size, or tool proficiencies. But, I put forth that some could go either way, Racial ASI's being one of them. Because I can think of learned behaviors that could cause those bonuses.

But I think I understand now. When a book says: "The man awoke and guzzled the water by his bed. He then drifted off back to sleep." You say: "That doesn't mean he was thirsty. It never says he was thirsty. It just proves that there was water by his bed. In fact, really he was just tired."

Read the implied meaning in the statements I gave. If you can't understand that they are implying innate traits, and can't reconcile with the fact that they want you to be able to apply real world common sense (like languages are learned after we are born), then I guess we don't agree.

Why do we need to understand the context of this rule? Is there context that would make it less of an official rule if it were discovered?

So the next time someone is on these boards they don't have to navigate arguments like you are proposing.

They gave examples of playing against type, they did not define that not having a +2 to your key stat was the only way to play against type. And, since there are multiple ways to play against type, then this rule cannot eliminate it.

Also, what about the race/class combos that this opens up that are archetypical and defined by the lore, but mechanically less than optimal? Orcs are the "Godsworn" with religion massively impacting every aspect of their lives. This rule allows for Orc Clerics to more easily exist.

I saw recently in Mordenkainen's that Gnomes have a particular fascination for star-gazing, and Forest gnomes have a love of small creautres. This could open up some very thematic Star Druid Gnome characters, who fit perfectly in the lore but are mechanically not "optimized".

These are just as "archetypical" as the combos that now exist, but are being relegated into your "against type" category. Why?

They gave two examples of playing with type. They gave two examples of playing against type. Guess what all four examples used had in common? You guessed it. The ones that were with type started with 16's or 17's. The ones against type started with 15's. But again, because they didn't come out and say that exactly (see the example above) you can just keep stating that is not what they meant.

As for your last question - are they just as archetypical. The answer - no. Gnomes make good wizards. They tinker with things. That is stereotypical of a gnome. A star gazing gnome is a cool idea. It is not archetypical, it is against the grain. Thus, playing it would be "against type." It actually matches. I'd like to see one in play. (And as an aside, if they created a new setting where star gazing gnomes were the everywhere, and they gave them a +2 bonus to wisdom, and other cool things that set them apart from the other gnomes, I would be super happy.)

They aren't changing a rule. They are adding an optional rule. That is the difference.

In fact, Tasha's features a lot of options, and something in particular stands out to me. You remember the Class Variant UA? The one that offered different abilities that players could pick instead of their normal ones?

It has been repeatedly referred to as the most popular UA ever. But, by your logic, they are changing the rules in the PHB and should have just made 6e instead.

I disagree. I think that these optional rules are sorely needed, but I don't think they require an entirely new edition of the game to implement. And, since 6e isn't being released but Tasha's is, I believe the game designer's agree with me.

Dude. How many times does this need to be explained? C'mon. You are so much smarter than this.

• It is an optional rule, which many tables will need to adopt, even though some might not want to.
• It is an optional rule that specifically goes against a core rule that has been in place for five years. A rule that has helped shape 5e. A rule that is intrinsic in creating archetypes (and therefore lore). A rule that is the very first rule the players actually encounter when creating a character.
• It is an option... I'm sorry... I just can't.

Look. You think the new rules are great. Cool.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

If you can't see the difference between Yuan-ti and Drow, there's not much point in trying to convince you.

The Monstrous Races are explicitly for the DM who wants to include them. Players don't have a right to expect that they will be allowed.

Then why hasn't that supposed distinction between those "monstrous" races and the rest of the player character races been upheld in every source those races have been reprinted in? Ravnica, Eberron, and Wildemount all have Volo's races listed in the same section as the other races featured in those books. That Volo's separated them due to formatting convenience is the simpler explanation.

EDIT: also if that distinction was so important, you'd think the races page on DNDBeyond would have a separate section for the "monstrous" races.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Have you been reading this thread? I've explained it twice already. Someone else went through it at least once.

Unless there's something different beyond what we've been told they completely mechanically obscelesce the variant humant for one. They get literally everything the variant humant gets plus Darkvision and an extra skill proficiency and fey ancestry.

Whereas the Half-Orc gets features that make them good melee warriors.

So a Haf-Orc Wizard could have a +2 Int and +1 somewhere else, Darkvision, Intimidation proficiency, and some melee features.
A Half-Elf Wizard could have +2 Int and +1 to two other scores, two skill proficiencies of their choice, Darkvision and fey ancestry.

The latter is still clearly the optimal choice.

And if you're stating that the differences don't matter because they're small, then they always were.

Either small differences matter so much we should change the rules to avoid them mattering or they don't. (In which case why are we changing the rules?)

Literally everything? Since when do Half Elves get a feat?

I know that the "custom race" gives a feat, but that isn't Half Elves. So, literally, they don't get everything variant humans get.

And, why not Goblins. They get a bonus to damage per short rest, Darkvision, and the really powerful bonus action disengage, so your wizard can easily keep out of melee. And you can hide as a bonus action to, making it easier to avoid direct combat. Those seem pretty close to two skills and fey ancestry, only losing that +1 to your third stat.

Aasimar get light, darkvision, resistance, bonus damage, flight, healing. Only losing that +1 to your third stat.

Why not Changeling? Two skills and permanent shapeshifting. Maybe not the best, but if you want to play a conman illusionist wizard, it could work really well.

I'm not saying Half-Elf isn't strong, but I don't see it overwhelming everything with just two skills and fey ancestry.

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

If you can't see the difference between Yuan-ti and Drow, there's not much point in trying to convince you.

The Monstrous Races are explicitly for the DM who wants to include them. Players don't have a right to expect that they will be allowed.

So players do have the right to expect to play Drow, Duergar, Shifters, Dragonborn, Tieflings, Shadar-Kai, Satyrs, Centaurs, Loxodon

I mean, I could keep going, but you are just going to dismiss me so you can keep pretending you are right.

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

But I think I understand now. When a book says: "The man awoke and guzzled the water by his bed. He then drifted off back to sleep." You say: "That doesn't mean he was thirsty. It never says he was thirsty. It just proves that there was water by his bed. In fact, really he was just tired."

Read the implied meaning in the statements I gave. If you can't understand that they are implying innate traits, and can't reconcile with the fact that they want you to be able to apply real world common sense (like languages are learned after we are born), then I guess we don't agree.

The statements you gave are the opening to the entire section. Each and every single one of them.

Yes, some of those traits are innate, something people are born with. I agree. Yes, some of those traits are learned after they are born. I agree.

I disagree that Ability Scores are necessarily innate.

That is what you need to prove here. You need to prove that Ability scores, which can be increased and changed over time, that can be altered by training, environment, ect, are being represented by innate, born abilities.

Prove that. Don't tell me that you found out that some of these traits are innate, so that means that ASIs must be innate, because obviously some of those traits are not innate. So you still need to prove that ASIs are innate.

They gave two examples of playing with type. They gave two examples of playing against type. Guess what all four examples used had in common? You guessed it. The ones that were with type started with 16's or 17's. The ones against type started with 15's. But again, because they didn't come out and say that exactly (see the example above) you can just keep stating that is not what they meant.

Yes, that was the examples that they gave.

Guess what, that doesn't mean that they defined every single version of playing against type.

As for your last question - are they just as archetypical. The answer - no. Gnomes make good wizards. They tinker with things. That is stereotypical of a gnome. A star gazing gnome is a cool idea. It is not archetypical, it is against the grain. Thus, playing it would be "against type." It actually matches. I'd like to see one in play. (And as an aside, if they created a new setting where star gazing gnomes were the everywhere, and they gave them a +2 bonus to wisdom, and other cool things that set them apart from the other gnomes, I would be super happy.)

Not archetypical? Huh, that isn't what Mordenkainen's says under Gnome Adventurers

The Pull of the Stars​

Because of their extensive travels, gnome adventurers often become fascinated with the grandeur of the cosmos as seen in the motion of the stars across the sky. They view the cosmic array as a giant machine of wonderful complexity — a banquet for a curious gnomish mind. Many renowned astronomers, wizards, and extraplanar travelers are gnomes, having undertaken those disciplines in the hope of better understanding the workings of the multiverse.



I also noticed that you didn't mention the lack of Orc Clerics. Since, you know, would be obviously archetypical.

Dude. How many times does this need to be explained? C'mon. You are so much smarter than this.

• It is an optional rule, which many tables will need to adopt, even though some might not want to.
• It is an optional rule that specifically goes against a core rule that has been in place for five years. A rule that has helped shape 5e. A rule that is intrinsic in creating archetypes (and therefore lore). A rule that is the very first rule the players actually encounter when creating a character.
• It is an option... I'm sorry... I just can't.

Look. You think the new rules are great. Cool.

See, you said it.

It is an optional rule.

So, no when you said "But if you choose to change a rule that has been in place for five years, and one that has been a staple for the game for several editions in a row, then maybe, just maybe, don't add it"

They have not changed the rule. They added an option. Options give a second path. They can do that for even fundamental parts of the game. They gave us 2 different options for creating Ability Scores, beyond rolling. Yes, they did that early, and they did not do this early, but that does not mean that they should have scraped the entirety of fifth edition before offering this option.

Tables are not going to be "forced" to adopt it. And obviously there is a lot of lore people don't even know about that can start getting accessed. Are the stats the first thing players encounter? Sometimes. Sometimes not. But, if I have a new player , I'm not throwing every book at them. I'm going to guide them through the process, and that means that they are seeing and hearing the rules I as the DM am giving them. And, a lot of the time, I'm giving them different rules than what is in the book, because I have a lot of houserules anyways.

 

[Helldritch]

And yet, you still dont understand the basic psychology. You have a table full of goodies but your only allowed to take a few yet all you have to do is ask. And at the other counter, the DM is allowing all the goodies. This will put the first DM at the first counter to offer all the goodies too.

This is what happened with 1ed UA. With the various handbooks of "insert class here" of 2ed and 3.xed. and the PHB 2+ of 4ed.

How many tables do you know that do not allow feats? Not a lot. How many tables do not allow the optional PHB races? Even fewer...

These rules are optional in appearences only. It will take a DM with a strong personality not to allow that book into his games.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

These rules are optional in appearences only. It will take a DM with a strong personality not to allow that book into his games.

If a DM isn't strong enough to tell the players what the rules are in the current game it's time to stop being the DM.

 

[Helldritch]

If a DM isn't strong enough to tell the players what the rules are in the current game it's time to stop being the DM.

Bold words. Place yourself in the shoes of a 15 years old teenager. Not so easy to do. And these are among the most numerous players in my area.