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

Guest User · Oct 19, 2020

Alzrius said:
My argument is that Tolkien's work had only a modest influence on D&D. The level caps on demihumans simply help to showcase that.

In Basic you did not pick a race....Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit were classes.
Only Magic Users and Rangers could use crystal balls.....why?....
.......because it matches the Palintir in LotR.

The Valley Elves are called grey elves, and live in a magically enshrouded vale protected by the Mage of the Vale.

The Silmarillion was published in 1977. Valley Elves clearly are influenced by Thingol's people.

D&D has wargaming roots, because those wargamers wanted to play in battles described in the LotR books. People want to create the Battle of Five Armies and so forth....then they wanted to narrow their scope and play the heroes.

The Conan stories were published in the 1920's.....some stories feature large scale battles....none of the stories impact was sufficient for someone to produce D&D.

The popularity and wide spread influence of the Lord of the Rings books, in Europe and North America, is what set the stage for the genesis of D&D, and D&D's obvious similarity to Tolkien is what made it a commercial success.

There is no D&D without Lord of the Rings.

Led Zeppelin doesn't reference Mazirian the Magician, Ningauble of the Nine Eyes, or the Scrolls of Skelos in their music.

Flat Earthers don't believe in a spherical earth, but the influence of the spherical shape of our planet, is more then "modest".

If some folks want to be D&D "Flat Earthers"...go right ahead....but it is silly.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 19, 2020

Maxperson said:
This is completely untrue. Without the +2 dex bonus that Elves get as a race, that Elf would have had an 8 dex and been penalized. That gives the racial bonus very significant meaning. Same with the Halfling. We know that since the Halfling did not get a racial str bonus, his strength is more significant than the Half-Orc. There are far fewer Halflings running around with a 15 strength than there are Half-Orcs.

That elven DEX bonus only gives significant meaning if you look across every single table across the globe. It is meaningless for YOUR own table. You don't need the PHB to give elves a +2 DEX for you to have your own personal table game with agile elves. You can have that regardless of what the PHB says. Because you control how you distribute the stats of your PCs and monsters. You want all elves in your campaign world to be more agile than others? Then you set a minimum of DEX, you give a bonus to point-buy for elven DEX, you allow for elves to have above 20 in DEX... whatever you want. Your table, your rules.

But you don't need the PHB to give you that. And you don't lose it just because Tasha's gets published.

All that is going to occur is that other tables out there will start to have elves who are not more dexterous on average than all the other races... on top of all the table out there who ALREADY do not have elves more dexterous because the individual table has already put in house rules that have taken that +2 DEX bonus away. And you just have to deal with that. You can't try and force all the other tables to follow your designs on this... even if you were somehow able to actually stop the production of Tasha's publication that is making it even easier to do.

Alzrius · Oct 19, 2020

Thunderous Mojo said:
In OD&D you did not pick a race....Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit were classes.

No, actually, this isn't correct. In OD&D (1974) you did pick a race, with dwarves and halflings being limited to the fighting-man class (6th level for dwarves, 4th level for halflings), and elves picking between fighting-man and magic-user (oddly, they chose which class to be at the start of each adventure, in what's now recognizable as an early attempt at multiclassing), being limited to 4th level in the former and 8th level in the latter.

"Races as classes" began in B/X, and was kept in BECMI.

Only Magic Users and Rangers could use crystal balls.....why?....

Maybe that's uniquely Tolkien (it seems safe to say that for the ranger, but might be a bit harder for the wizard), can you say the same for how, for instance, thieves were allowed to use magic scrolls?

EDIT: Looking back through the AD&D 1E DMG, I'm not seeing where it says that rangers can use crystal balls. Can anyone find a citation on that?

Cadence · Oct 19, 2020

Alzrius said:
First, let's dispel the notion that you're "forced" to retire your character. Such a thing is completely untrue; you can keep playing a character that's hit their level cap.

No, you don't have to retire your 4th level Half-Orc Cleric. But in a world where "it is usually essenntial to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characterisitcs (PHB pg.9)", it seems clear that being stuck an ever increasing number of levels behind the reaminder of the party is of the party isn't also massively detrimental. So yes, you can keep playing - and be a drag on your party and die.

Alzrius said:
Likewise, that particular rule only serves to highlight the relative lack of impact that demihuman races have within the context of the game world. Gary flat-out says in the AD&D 1E DMG that AD&D is humanocentric, and those level caps express this in game rules. Having a rule that emphasizes the modesty of those races is not somehow making them major in scope.

The level limits were needed to back up the humanocentric world because "Considering their other abilities, if most demi-humans were put on a par with humans in terms of levels they could attain, then there isn’t much question who would be saying “Sir!” to whom . . .” - Gygax, Dragon 8

And the reason for wanting the humans to be the ones at the top is "From a participation approach it is the only method, for all the players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying." And being centered on humans matches most of the literature that "can be incorporated or used as areference ofr the campaign" since "works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon."

Which exactly fits with LotR. The few remaining elves are in decline, the men are rising, and the on-rushing age - the one even the elves are working towards - is the age of men.

Alzrius said:
I'm honestly not sure why you're focusing on "coincidence." D&D certainly has some Tolkien influence, just not very much in the overall context of the game. The idea that the demihuman PC races somehow constitute an ill-defined "major" impact is largely an illusion. It's been self-evident for a long time that PC race doesn't have much of an impact on how your character plays, compared to their class and level. A 6th-level fighter isn't going to be much different if they're a human or an elf.

"coincidence"

For race not having a large impact on how characters played, there sure is a lot of angsting going on about ASIs being to restrictive and making some class/race combinations literally unplayable in the eyes of a bunch of folks on here.

Cadence · Oct 19, 2020

DEFCON 1 said:
That elven DEX bonus only gives significant meaning if you look across every single table across the globe. It is meaningless for YOUR own table. You don't need the PHB to give elves a +2 DEX for you to have your own personal table game with agile elves. You can have that regardless of what the PHB says. Because you control how you distribute the stats of your PCs and monsters. You want all elves in your campaign world to be more agile than others? Then you set a minimum of DEX, you give a bonus to point-buy for elven DEX, you allow for elves to have above 20 in DEX... whatever you want. Your table, your rules.

But you don't need the PHB to give you that. And you don't lose it just because Tasha's gets published.

All that is going to occur is that other tables out there will start to have elves who are not more dexterous on average than all the other races... on top of all the table out there who ALREADY do not have elves more dexterous because the individual table has already put in house rules that have taken that +2 DEX bonus away. And you just have to deal with that. You can't try and force all the other tables to follow your designs on this... even if you were somehow able to actually stop the production of Tasha's publication that is making it even easier to do.

Right, so the Tasha's rule is completely superfulous because no one needed it to allow for the races to be whatever they wanted them to be. ;-)

But seriously, my guess is that the fear of some is that it forsages what will happen in 6e. I'm guessing that they wouldn't be worried if it was just this one change from 4 decades of D&D lore, but that they need to steel themselves for it to jettison much of the rest of the things that have been distinctly D&D as well. Maybe its for the better, but change is hard. ::

::

Alzrius · Oct 19, 2020

Cadence said:
No, you don't have to retire your 4th level Half-Orc Cleric. But in a world where "it is usually essenntial to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) in no fewer than two ability characterisitcs (PHB pg.9)", it seems clear that being stuck an ever increasing number of levels behind the reaminder of the party is of the party isn't also massively detrimental. So yes, you can keep playing - and be a drag on your party and die.

I disagree. While that quote talks about your starting characteristics, the power-gain from leveling up back in older editions was notably smaller. Fighters and related sub-classes got the equivalent of an increased to-hit bonus at higher levels, but most classes didn't, which meant that being locked out of those greater levels represented a comparatively modest loss (and that's without reaching for the old "most games never got that high anyway" idea). Saving throws, for instance, only tended to go up every few levels, hit points quickly tapered off, and proficiencies came later. Magical gear could still be collected, hirelings and henchmen could still be retained, etc. You were hardly a drag on the party if you were a few levels behind them...especially considering that they might lose levels from level-draining undead, being resurrected, etc.

Cadence said:
The level limits were needed to back up the humanocentric world because "Considering their other abilities, if most demi-humans were put on a par with humans in terms of levels they could attain, then there isn’t much question who would be saying “Sir!” to whom . . .” - Gygax, Dragon 8

Sure. Getting bonuses that humans didn't made them better mechanical choices, particularly at the outset. But would D&D look significantly different if those races weren't there at all?

Cadence said:
And the reason for wanting the humans to be the ones at the top is "From a participation approach it is the only method, for all the players are, after all is said and done, human, and it allows them the role with which most are most desirous and capable of identifying." And being centered on humans matches most of the literature that "can be incorporated or used as areference ofr the campaign" since "works which do not feature mankind in a central role are uncommon."

Which exactly fits with LotR. The few remaining elves are in decline, the men are rising, and the on-rushing age - the one even the elves are working towards - is the age of men.

That's nothing like LotR. Lord of the Rings had the elves being in a state of decline as the world moved away from being a place that they could comfortably inhabit. The rule of men was largely by default, whereas in D&D it's because humans are simply better in terms of their overall ability to excel. Elves were good choices at the beginning, but not so much later on. Ironically, this remained true even after the level cap was removed in later editions, and character race was still seen as comparatively unimportant compared to class and level.

Cadence said:
For race not having a large impact on how characters played, there sure is a lot of angsting going on about ASIs being to restrictive and making some class/race combinations literally unplayable in the eyes of a bunch of folks on here.

That's not an issue of the degree of Tolkien's influence on the game.

Cadence · Oct 19, 2020

Alzrius said:
Maybe that's uniquely Tolkien (it seems safe to say that for the ranger, but might be a bit harder for the wizard), can you say the same for how, for instance, thieves were allowed to use magic scrolls?

I assume Magic thieves give credit to Mouser?

Would you agree that these six ( from General - A shorter Appendix N ) pretty much do a good job of defining the flavor of the game:

Anderson, Poul: THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS;
Howard, R. E.: "Conan" series
Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" series; et al
Moorcock, Michael: STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS;
Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT; "Ring trilogy"
Vance, Jack: THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al

?

Guest User · Oct 19, 2020

Alzrius said:
No, actually, this isn't correct. In OD&D (1974) you did pick a race

Go back and read my now complete post..I hit post before I was done, and you quoted my work in progress.

LoTR is why D&D exists. Gary might have preferred other authors, personally, but the impact of Tolkien on the culture and the hobby is paramount and obvious.
To call the impact "modest" is a warped view.

Oofta · Oct 19, 2020

Cadence said:
Right, so the Tasha's rule is completely superfulous because no one needed it to allow for the races to be whatever they wanted them to be. ;-)

But seriously, my guess is that the fear of some is that it forsages what will happen in 6e. I'm guessing that they wouldn't be worried if it was just this one change from 4 decades of D&D lore, but that they need to steel themselves for it to jettison much of the rest of the things that have been distinctly D&D as well. Maybe its for the better, but change is hard. ::::

It's not just that change is hard (and the game has evolved with every edition) it's that change can also have unexpected consequences and this feels like a fairly fundamental change. I haven't decided if it's going to affect my home game or not, but when we can play in person again I had planned on getting involved in AL again where this rule will be in place.

It just means that if I want to play against type (I've played dwarven wizards, half-orc monk and so on) I can't do that any more. Every race "fits" every class and archetype now. Every race becomes ever more generic, ever more just a funny accent with a different mask. I'd actually prefer penalties for every race, so that I could have the ugliest dwarf in the land* who was convinced he had a future in showbiz because he rolled a 20 on a performance check while the bard rolled a 1 in a contest.

I get that certain sacred cows should be taken out back and put out of their misery. I'm just not sure this is one of them.

*in Living Greyhawk I had a dwarf with a 5 charisma because of a curse

Alzrius · Oct 19, 2020

Cadence said:
I assume Magic thieves give credit to Mouser?

That was my take on it, too.

Cadence said:
Would you agree that these six ( from General - A shorter Appendix N ) pretty much do a good job of defining the flavor of the game:

Anderson, Poul: THREE HEARTS AND THREE LIONS;
Howard, R. E.: "Conan" series
Leiber, Fritz: "Fafhrd & Gray Mouser" series; et al
Moorcock, Michael: STORMBRINGER; STEALER OF SOULS;
Tolkien, J. R. R.: THE HOBBIT; "Ring trilogy"
Vance, Jack: THE EYES OF THE OVERWORLD; THE DYING EARTH; et al

?

That's a difficult question to answer, because "the flavor of the game" is so hard to pin down. What constitutes definitional characteristics of D&D are going to vary from person to person (and certainly, for some people that will include Tolkien-style elves and dwarves). Those six entries cover a lot of ground, but there's quite a bit that they don't cover, such as Zelazny's Jack in Shadows (hence why the thief ability is "hide in shadows" and not just "hide"), Dunsany's "King of Elfland's Daughter" (I might be misremembering, but I think that's the Appendix N stories where the characters openly talk about "random encounters"), Gardner Fox's "Kothar" stories (which gave us the lich), etc.

The best answer I can give is a tentative "I suppose," but limiting it to those six leaves out a lot.