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

[Scott Christian]

True, but then you have to look at Unearthed Arcana (1e), v3.5 and Essentials (4e) in the same light as the Tasha changes. There is a tradition of "mid-edition" changes as well.

Spot on. I guess this is a mid-edition change. Sounds right to me.

 

[Argyle King]

True, but then you have to look at Unearthed Arcana (1e), v3.5 and Essentials (4e) in the same light as the Tasha changes. There is a tradition of "mid-edition" changes as well.

I sorta do.

Note: some of this isn't necessarily directed at you; your comment simply prompted thought.

In my mind, Essentials -while compatible with 4E- wasn't really 4E anymore. It was different enough and had a different enough design mentality that it was essentially (no pun intended) a different edition of the game. The Monster Math for 4E was finally somewhat fixed right before Essentials*, but it didn't really matter because (what I perceive as) shifts in the mentality and principles behind how/why parts of the game were being designed were different enough to play out as a different game at the table.

(*And, I may be mistaken, but I believe it was at some point admitted that some of the Essentials stuff -much like Book of 9 Swords era 3E- were early tests of new-edition concepts.)

I can't speak on behalf of UA for 1E because I have no experience with the product.

I'm not quite sure where I would place 3.5. Much like Essentials, it was technically compatible with 3.0, and (I think) the mental thought behind the hows/whys of game design were (mostly) the same, but there were some significant changes to core components of how things like creature size and weapons worked which altered a lot of things to which those components were connected. Trying to use 3.0 supplements with 3.5 was trial-and-error when it came to figuring out what was fine and what produced extremely broken results. I want to say 3.5 was effectively a new edition, but I think there was less of a difference between 3.0* and (early) 3.5 than there was between 3.5 and (later) 3.5 products, such as Book of 9 Swords (which were early tests of 4E concepts).

(*honestly, my memory is fuzzy on 3.0 because the switch to 3.5 happened so fast. I bought 3.0 books, went on a military deployment, and came home to a group who played with 3.5)

Do I think systems should change and evolve? Yes, they should. It's natural that a design be improved and made better once faults are seen. Though, I think there is a way to do that while still maintaining a coherent design philosophy behind doing what you're doing. If the philosophy itself is flawed (and that does happen,) I believe there are ways to approach that, but I feel as though getting into that would start to go into a rather long tangent from what I'm attempting to currently say in a long-winded way. (FWIW, it is my opinion think some aspects of 5E design are partially flawed in that things pointed out during the playtest were "fixed" in ways that I don't feel accurately addressed the feedback given and because monster/encounter design seems to have kept some of the 4E problems without the benefits.)

Mechanics is a big part of it, but I also think "design mentality" (a phrased I've used often here) is part of it too. The "why" of doing something is often just as important as the "how" of doing something when designing a product. While the "why" isn't necessarily a mechanical change in many instances, I believe that a drastic change in the "why" can cause the methods involved in the "how" to be applied to a product in ways which produce other changes. I'm not even sure if that makes sense; it involves a lot of things like "feel" and stuff that I don't yet have adequate language to express to others, but I think there's a valid point somewhere in there.

Upthread, somebody mentioned the difficulty in consistency when multiple writers and designers are involved in something. That's true. It is difficult. That's why television shows and movies which are part of an ongoing series typically have a "bible" to help maintain consistency. The Marvel movies are not by any means perfect, but many of them are good examples of making sure that established details "make sense" or "feel real" in the context of that "in-game" world. Designing a rpg (both mechanics and fluff) is something I feel could benefit from doing the same thing.

(I assume this does happen behind the scenes of WoTC, but I don't know. If not, it should.)

Personally, what I perceive as violations of established parts of the franchise are part of why I do not feel the Captain Marvel movie was very good. IMO, It would have been perfectly fine as a stand-alone and unconnected movie, but I did not like it as a movie which was intended to be part of the larger story and franchise. I think the character, as presented, would also be an example of the "mechanics" of handling a fantasy situation -like those presented in a rpg- in a way which is inconsistent with a lot of what came before, and the presentation makes several drastic changes to both the "why" of things and the "how" of things. To be completely fair, other movies in the collection are guilty of the same, but not quite to the extent of that particular product. I think it serves as an analogy to D&D because it is a portrayal of fantasy stories, and each movie could be viewed somewhat as splat books which add new things to the overall "game" (both narratively and mechanically). Differences to the "why" and "how" in that movie's portrayal connect to other products and alter the collective whole.

Highlander 2, with the weird alien planet story line might be a better example. I think most people can more-easily agree that was awful and a radical change from what was established in the first movie.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

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.

I think with these two points, I only have one response.

Since other DMs can do as they please, do not prescribe upon all DMs your mandate.

You said making a coherent world is on the DM alone, but the truth is you run a dictatorship that takes no other opinions. And hey, that's fine, you can run your dictatorship. But, your preference as Dictator DM does not mean that the role of DM is forced to be Dictatorial for everyone.

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

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)

So you want to say the point is not about lore.

Then you say how much it will affect racial lore.

Then you talk about archetypes (which are established by lore)

That is 3/5's of your points that are specifically about lore. But, now that I'm bringing lore that you don't like, so you seem to be shifting the conversation.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think with these two points, I only have one response.

Since other DMs can do as they please, do not prescribe upon all DMs your mandate.

You said making a coherent world is on the DM alone, but the truth is you run a dictatorship that takes no other opinions.

My players don't offer other opinions. If they wanted to be responsible for the world, they would DM themselves, and I wouldn't have to.
As the saying goes "why keep a dog and bark yourself?"

 

[Scott Christian]

I am with you. I was a bit more curious as to how the DM views the setting of the world, and its impact on these variant rules. I have had DM's say, Dragonborns don't exist. I am fine with that. And I am fine with a halfling having a 20 strength (although deep down I tend to ignore it rather than embrace it).
But my question really revolved around the DM's view of setting as much as anything. I doubt any DM here, especially those that favor keeping tropes, would care if a skill or attack bonus was +6 or +7. The only thing that matters to are min/maxers. And everyone knows half the reason variant rules exist is to appease the outcry of min/maxers. It is the game within a game. (And it is fun to play.)

I am of the wait and see theory here. But gut instincts are real.

If you remove something from being okay at a class to everything being equal at a class, then the mechanical choices ones make are moot. This leads to all the D&D players not being able to make their "my wizard is better than yours." That takes some of the fun out of the game. But it also does this...
For people like Oofta (I believe) it removes ingrained patterns that develops from players making characters. And it is about patterns. They develop based on stereotypes. And to play against the stereotype is fun and interesting. That is how a dark elf was born into myth. You see very few high elf barbarians. Why? Because they are not optimized for the class. Say what you want about D&D's base, but a huge majority of them choose to make the stronger character as opposed to the one that focuses on other things. That is what making everything equal does.
Sure, you may now see high elf barbarians, but does that make the game any better?

To be fair Chaos, I have been on both sides of your argument. I think your table (the way you describe it) is a lot of fun. It must be tough. And that is part of its appeal. Losing 5% on a roll, and having it affect outcomes, is a high level skill for a DM (and players). Kudos to you. And you stated a long time ago the min/maxing did not affect the roleplay. Again, kudos. That is a difficult balance, and I applauded it and still applaud it.
But it is a min/max character creation. I believe there are more of those than any other type of player. I believe you are in the majority. I think the reason some have debated you on this, is:
1. They do not believe 5% can make that much of a difference
2. They just want you to state you are a min/max character creation player
3. They feel that by pushing things that help min/maxers, it alters lore/tropes/and actually hinders a style of play that is not min/maxing
4. All of the above

So you want to say the point is not about lore.

Then you say how much it will affect racial lore.

Then you talk about archetypes (which are established by lore)

That is 3/5's of your points that are specifically about lore. But, now that I'm bringing lore that you don't like, so you seem to be shifting the conversation.

I think you have me confused with someone else. It's easy to do. I know I have done it several times on these forums.
Here are three responses to you from 35 pages ago. I didn't even enter this conversation until page 13 or 14. Our first discussion was about Tolkien dwarves.
I have mentioned lore the entire argument, specifically how the deconstruction of tropes makes it more difficult to create "against type," which in turn, hurts lore.
Truth is, I wasn't even in that mind set in the beginning. I was offering both sides their views. But the more I saw the emphatic need of a 16, and the lack of understanding of the other side's viewpoint even when offered concrete evidence, the more I realized it's all about one side rewriting anything presented so they can justify their argument.

And by the way, if it is cultural, as you say, then I should definitely be able to start with a +5 in any stat as an elf. Hundreds of years in a culture of whatever, would indicate mastery.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM says "you can't play an elf in this campaign" then players can't play an elf. No "but elves are part of the core rules" no "but I really really want to play an elf". No elves means no elves. My players have never had any problems with that, and they are clearly having fun because they keep on coming back for more.

The flip side of this is that if you have a player that say always plays an elf, getting rid of elves for a campaign wouldn't be cool. I had a player like that. He's been with the group for about 15 years, but the first 5 or 6 years(one campaign a year on average) he was an Elf Wizard.

 

[Chaosmancer]

My players don't offer other opinions. If they wanted to be responsible for the world, they would DM themselves, and I wouldn't have to.
As the saying goes "why keep a dog and bark yourself?"

Because I want to be entertained as much as they do, and they want to feel invested in the world.

I get the feeling you are never going to understand this, that's fine, run your Dictatorship (and remember, you called it that) and I'll keep having a conversation with my friends about how best to handle the implications of our plot.

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

I think you have me confused with someone else. It's easy to do. I know I have done it several times on these forums.
Here are three responses to you from 35 pages ago. I didn't even enter this conversation until page 13 or 14. Our first discussion was about Tolkien dwarves.

I have mentioned lore the entire argument, specifically how the deconstruction of tropes makes it more difficult to create "against type," which in turn, hurts lore.

Truth is, I wasn't even in that mind set in the beginning. I was offering both sides their views. But the more I saw the emphatic need of a 16, and the lack of understanding of the other side's viewpoint even when offered concrete evidence, the more I realized it's all about one side rewriting anything presented so they can justify their argument.

And by the way, if it is cultural, as you say, then I should definitely be able to start with a +5 in any stat as an elf. Hundreds of years in a culture of whatever, would indicate mastery.

I don't see what a +5 gets you, but if you really want to keep on this train, go ahead. I'm not sure if you realize this but, my players tend to roll stats (despite me recommending against it) so I've had more than one player start the game with a 20 in their prime state.

And the end result was.... nothing much. Sure, they rarely missed their attacks and their DCs were higher, but the game proceeded as it normally does. I'm not terrified that you are going to end up with high stats. I had that, my friend rolled and ended up with "The wizard that could do anything" his lowest stat was a 14. He wasn't even the most memorable character in that game for me.


And, I've tried to "understand the other sides viewpoint". Their viewpoint is vague, their points keep shifting, and the strongest argument seems to be that if they can't be forced to have a 15 their characters aren't special anymore.

I mean, the point seems to consistently be "dwarves are meant to be fighters, so my dwarf bard isn't special if he is just as good of a bard as he is a fighter" And I've approached this issue in a half dozen ways, and I can't figure out how this is actually bad.

Finally, for the third time, I would like a straight answer. Why are Orc Clerics not archetypical? I've provided solid lore and mechanical reasons to support them, the only thing they lack is a bonus to wisdom, which you have claimed is the sign that something is "archetypical" so what prevents Orc Clerics from being archetypes for their race?

 

[Maxperson]

My players don't offer other opinions. If they wanted to be responsible for the world, they would DM themselves, and I wouldn't have to.
As the saying goes "why keep a dog and bark yourself?"

I keep telling my dogs that if I'm not barking, they shouldn't be either.

 

[Maxperson]

Because I want to be entertained as much as they do, and they want to feel invested in the world.

I get the feeling you are never going to understand this, that's fine, run your Dictatorship (and remember, you called it that) and I'll keep having a conversation with my friends about how best to handle the implications of our plot.

It is a dictatorship. The difference is in whether it's benevolent or not. The bolded part is you deciding as the benevolent dictator to include your friends. I'm fairly benevolent in my games as well.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is a dictatorship. The difference is in whether it's benevolent or not. The bolded part is you deciding as the benevolent dictator to include your friends. I'm fairly benevolent in my games as well.

I still reject this position.

The term "Dungeon Master" refers much more to a title like "Master of Ceremonies" than it does to "Master". I don't need to have absolute control over everything. Do I have veto power? Sure, but that doesn't make me a dictator.