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

[Helldritch]

This was the Forgotten Realms, with standard elves. Players just weren't permitted to be play as one.

Can I play a half-elf?

Jokes aside, anything can be done. As long as the players are ok with it.

 

[jasper]

I was DMing when I was 12.

And you can't be a good DM if you let the players dictate the rules - it's not fair on them.

The DM's job is much tougher than the players, they do far more prep, they spend more money. If ....

See there you go lying again. You know I have 666 minis and all the books going back to 1601. You only have your poker chips which you stole from the Casino and the pente pices. Gripe Gripe Gripe. Now you want me to dm too. For the likes of our group.
(BIG EVIL GRIN)

 

[Chaosmancer]

When I DM, it's always my version of the world - my FR, my Barovia, my Eberron. I reserve the right to make whatever changes I please.

Okay, and?

You reserve the right to make changes but that doesn't mean that the responsibility of making Barovia, Eberron or Forgotten Realms coherent rests solely on you. A lot of coherency already exists (or does not exist) because of the actions and decisions of people who are not you.

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

I can write it out for you. I can even go back to 4th edition and ask you to reread the racial bonuses and physical qualities of each race. The ones that specifically match and detail the bonus. But all you will say is: "It doesn't say they are born with it." And then I will say back: "But it literally says the race, meaning the entire race, has these qualities." And then you will say: "But maybe they just grew up in a culture that promoted it. Because it doesn't say they are born like that." And thus, the cyclical argument goes on forever.
So, let us say you are right. It's not nature, it is nurture. Because in the end, that is the two sides presented. OK. Then my character is from a highlands plain area full of runners. They run. We do it so much, that we are better than 99.9% of the other races. I want a +3 in con because we train so much in running. No other plusses, just a +3 con. That is what my people do. As DM, is this okay, or is their a "natural" limit on how much a race (in your mind culture) can improve?

I wouldn't normally go for a +3 alone, but there is precedent. So, since this seems to be something the person cared enough about to make an entire culture about, sure, I'd be fine with that.

And the examples they give in fourth edition are also focused on stats. But, apparently, you know what they meant.

Why the sudden interest in the intentions of 4e when discussing the intentions of 5e? Seems like an odd pivot to appeal to history.

That is what a splat book does. It doesn't reinforce archetypes, it tries to create new ones. Hence, why it is Mordenkainen's and not the PHB.

You realize that makes no sense right? Because Mordenkainen's was specifically building and exploring the cultures and archetypes of the various races. By saying it was meant o create new archetypes you would expect new archetypes for dwarves, but I don't remember seeing anything "nontraditional" in the dwarven section of the book.

Sorry. I didn't know you wanted me to address orc clerics. I do not think they would be archetypical. I apologize, I am a bit confused about this question.

It is fairly simple really. Archetypes are based off some of the most common traits of the race. Dwarves are tough and good with weapons, so they tend to be Fighters or Clerics. Hill Dwarves seemed to have been made almost exclusively to fill the Dwarf Cleric role.


Orcs are strong and tough, sure, but they are fanatically devoted to their gods. Volo's even gives their title in the book as "Orcs: The Godsworn". Most every single thing in their entry involves their gods and their religion. Even their "elite" units show this. The Eye of Gruumsh, The Blade of Ilneval, The Claw of Luthic, The Hand of Yurtrus, The Fang of Shargaas (The Claw and Hand straight up have clerical spellcasting)

So, Orc Clerics should be archetypal. They should be incredibly common within orc society. Orcs and Half-Orcs receive no wisdom bonus to show this, or a Charisma bonus to show that they instead have many paladins. This clear archetype of Orcs and their gods is not given any space in this design choice we have so far.

And, the Orc statblock for PCs was given to us in Volo's, so we can't even say that the splatbook added something that the rules didn't reflect before, because they came out in the same book.

Tables are not forced to do anything, including the use of spells. We know this. But few tables do not use feats. Yet, they are optional. Few tables do not use races outside of PHB. Yet those are optional. Even fewer don't use spells or backgrounds outside of the PHB, but those are optional.

The game is a compromise between different types of players, DM's and people. That's it. So if Tasha's is a great selling book, then these rules will be put into place on many tables, including some that do not want it there.

And as I told Max, that is mostly DM driven. I have never seen a single DM in my area or online who wanted to run a featless game. Or wanted to run a game without Xanathar's spells, or without Multiclassing.

So, maybe Tasha's will be a first. Maybe for the first time I will see DMs tell me that they don't want to include it, but their players insisted. But, I haven't seen that yet, and if I am supposed to gauge the future by the past, I feel like it is an unlikely thing to occur.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wouldn't normally go for a +3 alone, but there is precedent. So, since this seems to be something the person cared enough about to make an entire culture about, sure, I'd be fine with that.

That's cool. Good on you for compromising with the player. Everyone, look. DM's compromising with a player. Sounds like a good table. I could start with an 18 and be better than everyone at my niche.

Why the sudden interest in the intentions of 4e when discussing the intentions of 5e? Seems like an odd pivot to appeal to history.

The past helps define the present, especially with literature, history and ideas.

You realize that makes no sense right? Because Mordenkainen's was specifically building and exploring the cultures and archetypes of the various races. By saying it was meant o create new archetypes you would expect new archetypes for dwarves, but I don't remember seeing anything "nontraditional" in the dwarven section of the book.

So because it doesn't contain all nontraditional archetypes, that's not one of the intentions of the book. Got it.

It is fairly simple really. Archetypes are based off some of the most common traits of the race. Dwarves are tough and good with weapons, so they tend to be Fighters or Clerics. Hill Dwarves seemed to have been made almost exclusively to fill the Dwarf Cleric role.


Orcs are strong and tough, sure, but they are fanatically devoted to their gods. Volo's even gives their title in the book as "Orcs: The Godsworn". Most every single thing in their entry involves their gods and their religion. Even their "elite" units show this. The Eye of Gruumsh, The Blade of Ilneval, The Claw of Luthic, The Hand of Yurtrus, The Fang of Shargaas (The Claw and Hand straight up have clerical spellcasting)

So, Orc Clerics should be archetypal. They should be incredibly common within orc society. Orcs and Half-Orcs receive no wisdom bonus to show this, or a Charisma bonus to show that they instead have many paladins. This clear archetype of Orcs and their gods is not given any space in this design choice we have so far.

And, the Orc statblock for PCs was given to us in Volo's, so we can't even say that the splatbook added something that the rules didn't reflect before, because they came out in the same book.

Lore, written lore, with no mechanics to back it up are a different subject. Maybe that is where you are confused?

And as I told Max, that is mostly DM driven. I have never seen a single DM in my area or online who wanted to run a featless game. Or wanted to run a game without Xanathar's spells, or without Multiclassing.

So, maybe Tasha's will be a first. Maybe for the first time I will see DMs tell me that they don't want to include it, but their players insisted. But, I haven't seen that yet, and if I am supposed to gauge the future by the past, I feel like it is an unlikely thing to occur.

I've seen it. That's my anecdotal evidence. So who is right? My guess - you.

Why? Because of what you said in bold. So everyone on this forum - no more arguing about whether it is optional. Chaos has spoken. He says it's unlikely that any table will refuse these "optional" rules. So we should reprint the PHB and place them in. These are not options - I agree Chaos.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've seen it. That's my anecdotal evidence. So who is right? My guess - you.

Why? Because of what you said in bold. So everyone on this forum - no more arguing about whether it is optional. Chaos has spoken. He says it's unlikely that any table will refuse these "optional" rules. So we should reprint the PHB and place them in. These are not options - I agree Chaos.

I've run a featless campaign to 13 so I could use individual feat bullet points for magic items & such

• It didn't really give me muchdesignspace to provide players with magicitems that were subjectively better/worse but similar power
• There wasn't much room for PCs to grow through the replacement of magic items
• The bullet points I could usefully apply to caster items were extremely limited & tended to pale compared to the wow worthy ones available for (ranged/melee) weapon users.
  • The ones available tended to be much weaker.
• Everyone tended to have one or two points that were must have & frequently they were the same bullet point.
• statflation was out of control because the underlying system is not well balanced against everyone at the table spending every ASI on +stat similar to the inverse of 3.5's troubles players would encounter if they didn't get the proper +stat items or their build at or around the level ranges they were expected to have them.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So because it doesn't contain all nontraditional archetypes, that's not one of the intentions of the book. Got it.

What?

You said that the gnome thing didn't count coming from Mordenkainen's because it "doesn't reinforce archetypes, it tries to create new ones."

But the Dwarven section does pretty much nothing except reinforce archetypes. It is a direct contradiction to your point. It did not try and create new archetypes, it reinforced old ones.

Now you are responding to that by... twisting that refutation into something that doesn't even make sense. Because it is a mix of potential new archetypes (It did give a lot more new archetypes to Tielfings and Fiendish Cults) and standard archetypes (dwarves) then the book can't talk about archetypes at all?

The Gnomish Stargazer text is not a new archetype, it is a new facet to the standard gnomish archetype of scientists. It blends in the idea of "cosmic machinery" with a Gnomes love of complex systems and deep study. It fits perfectly into their existing themes and there is a subclass devoted exclusively too it... a druidic class. Which also ties into the Forest Gnomes connection with nature and small beasts, a very druidic thing. And yet, Gnomes are not normally considered "archetypal" for Druids... for really no reason I can fathom looking at their lore, abilities, and homes, except that people think "Gnome Wizard because illusions and science" and leave it at that.

Lore, written lore, with no mechanics to back it up are a different subject. Maybe that is where you are confused?

Maybe you are confused, since I listed multiple statblocks which mechanically supported the lore.

Also, the entire point of this discussion is that there is lore, written lore, that is not being backed up by the mechanics. And that other people are saying that if we change these mechanics, Lore, written Lore, will be altered.

So... maybe you are confused about that fact that written lore has been central to this discussion the entire time.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Okay, and?

You reserve the right to make changes but that doesn't mean that the responsibility of making Barovia, Eberron or Forgotten Realms coherent rests solely on you. A lot of coherency already exists (or does not exist) because of the actions and decisions of people who are not you.

The responsibility of making the world my players are playing in coherent lies solely with me. If I am using a setting that usually means hammering out the inconsistencies and contradictions that various authors have created, and deciding which is the true version in my world. It might also mean changing aspects which I judge won't appeal to my players, such as the anti-agnosticism of the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The responsibility of making the world my players are playing in coherent lies solely with me. If I am using a setting that usually means hammering out the inconsistencies and contradictions that various authors have created, and deciding which is the true version in my world. It might also mean changing aspects which I judge won't appeal to my players, such as the anti-agnosticism of the Forgotten Realms.

This is just going to go in circles.

The authors who wrote everything that you don't consider an inconsistency and contradiction? They also have a say in making a coherent world. And some DMs simply run those worlds with their inconsistencies because "that's how the setting works"

And what do you do when a player goes to you, not only with an inconsistency in your own authorial writings, but a solution? Are you still claiming sole responsibility for making the world? Did you plant the thought in their head? Convince them to come to you with a solution?

No.

What you are meaning to say is that you are the maanger in charge of the world. That is true. But, like all managers, the existence of the company (ie the World) does not rest solely on your broad shoulders. It exists because of the team, even if they are, in theory, supposed to look to you for guidance.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is just going to go in circles.

The authors who wrote everything that you don't consider an inconsistency and contradiction? They also have a say in making a coherent world.

Nope. The world is mine. They write source material that I pick and choose from to save myself some work. Where there are contradictory sources I choose whatever I like best.

And some DMs simply run those worlds with their inconsistencies because "that's how the setting works"

Other DMs can do what they please. It has no bearing on what I do, what I do has no bearing on what they do.

And what do you do when a player goes to you, not only with an inconsistency in your own authorial writings, but a solution?

It's never happened.

Are you still claiming sole responsibility for making the world?

Yes.

What you are meaning to say is that you are the maanger in charge of the world. That is true. But, like all managers, the existence of the company (ie the World) does not rest solely on your broad shoulders. It exists because of the team, even if they are, in theory, supposed to look to you for guidance.

No, do not put words in my mouth. I am not the manager, I am the dictator. The only way the players can affect the world is through the actions of their characters.

 

[Scott Christian]

Also, the entire point of this discussion is that there is lore, written lore, that is not being backed up by the mechanics.

Nope. The entire point of the discussion are the effects of a floating ASI. Here are some highlights:

• How much will it affect racial lore? (Some say a little, some say a lot)
• Does it create new archetypes? (All agree, yes)
• Will it erode traditional archetypes? (Some say yes, some say no)
• Does it help optimizers and min/maxers? (Most say yes)
• Will most tables use this rule? (Most say yes, some say yes but might not want to, a few say no)

Boiled down:
Players: I want a 16 to start! It is unfair these imaginary races aren't all equal.
WotC: (Behind closed doors) Will it make it easier on us and the players complaining?
Players: (Listening through door) Yes.
WotC: Ok. Let's change a core rule because of some vocal pressure.

Rules are limitations. That is what they are. Why have them if you are just going to keep shifting them to an easier setting? Especially in a game where any house rule can be implemented.

If you want to shift language because you feel it reflects poorly on a real life situation, that is a good thing. I applaud it. If you just want to add stuff, I have listed a possibility of thousands that they can add without changing the rules. But in the end it is about the 16. Of course, the only way to do that is to switch the attributes (by the way, even the word attributes leans towards nature, not nurture) from innate to cultural. Which is what they did.

But now, all I want is an elf that has been in a culture of traditional strongmen for five hundred years. All he does is train. Four hundred and fifty years of training! Lifting rocks, throwing logs, doing pull ups, squatting my dragonborn pals, doing pushups one handed Rocky style, and eating tons of protein from the yaks we wrestle to the ground. Four hundred fifty years should start me with at least a +5 to strength (if it is cultural and just learned).