D&D (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Clint_L]

Do we know if "half-X" races are in the new book? I remember there was some testing of being able to mix any species so you could have a half elf half gnome all annoying PC or whatever. If that's still the case we don't need specific rules for one set of mixed species, even if half-elf and half-orc have a special niche.

Last we know from the UA is that you can do any mix you want but pick one of the parent species as the basis for in-game mechanics. Though in-game mechanics from species are also much reduced in the UA, with background becoming much more significant.

But there's a whole thread on that. I'm much more interested in the new exhaustion mechanics.

 

[Weiley31]

I expected nothing less for the use of the 2014 Half-Elf. Especially since it's all backwards compatible still.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm guessing it's that stacking -1 (to all rolls and DCs iirc?) that we saw in the play test.

Didn't the UA version go up to ten levels instead of six tho?

 

[DEFCON 1]

to me they fit the outsider that doesn't feel like they fit in anywhere trope.

My argument against this idea is that you don't need an entire species to play that trope. Indeed, any PC from any species can play that thematic identity just based on how you decide your PC grew up.

Indeed... that's the issue with pretty much ALL the species... they get devolved down to just a handful of "tropes" that every single member of that species is supposed to be in order to distinguish them from humans. Which is just meant to direct players into playing each species in a specific way, thereby making them all the same. But we know that humans are not all the same... they are as wide and as varied as could be. So why would we think other species would be?

 

[Oofta]

My argument against this idea is that you don't need an entire species to play that trope. Indeed, any PC from any species can play that thematic identity just based on how you decide your PC grew up.

Indeed... that's the issue with pretty much ALL the species... they get devolved down to just a handful of "tropes" that every single member of that species is supposed to be in order to distinguish them from humans. Which is just meant to direct players into playing each species in a specific way, thereby making them all the same. But we know that humans are not all the same... they are as wide and as varied as could be. So why would we think other species would be?

I'm not saying it's necessary, just the way race was handled in the past. Also a lot of people like a simple hook to base concepts on.

I'm going to continue having them in my home campaign because they still exist and have established lore.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm going to continue having them in my home campaign because they still exist and have established lore.

And that's the way I think everyone should and probably will look at it going forward. There are a lot of species that won't appear in a 5E24 wrote-up, but there's still plenty of ways to bring those species into a 5E24 game. They all still potentially exist if the DM and players wish it so.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Didn't the UA version go up to ten levels instead of six tho?

Yup. But they probably found that you might as well just die if you have worse than -5 to all d20 rolls!

 

[Fanaelialae]

Didn't the UA version go up to ten levels instead of six tho?

That sounds right, but I honestly don't recall. I think it's conceivable that they may have changed the cap in the finished version though.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My argument against this idea is that you don't need an entire species to play that trope. Indeed, any PC from any species can play that thematic identity just based on how you decide your PC grew up.

In a way, I think the tiefling fills that niche. Just look at the D&D movie for example.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That sounds right, but I honestly don't recall. I think it's conceivable that they may have changed the cap in the finished version though.

Maybe -2 per level of exhaustion. -1 always feels too neglegible.