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

UngeheuerLich said:

That statement in itself is very dismissive of the reality. If you can do what you want and if you are concerned about optimization, you just won´t do it. Although it is not unbalanced in any way, the game just became a little less interesting, because building around limitations is a challenge in my view.
Is it the most interesting thing to build around not getting a +2 bonus to a stat? Not necessarily. Especially in point buy. But if you do point buy, you are either interested in balance or optimization anyway, and the rule does not hurt, as it opens up more races.
I think groups who think limitations are interesting and play "unoptimized combinations" anyway, you just can leave the rules option alone or implement it differently or in a weakened form. We now just have to endpoints of a scale, what the designers consider balanced.

Click to expand...

I was responding to the idea that because you can move points around, you have fewer options, somehow. That because you can have a 16 Int dwarf, playing 'against type' is no longer an option.

If you want to play a dwarf wizard who struggles with low Int, then you can still do that.

(Of course, that was a based on a misreading of what the person was worried about.)

DEFCON 1 said:

othing that happens at anyone else's table has any impact on what goes on at yours

Click to expand...

+1

jmartkdr2 said:

I was responding to the idea that because you can move points around, you have fewer options, somehow. That because you can have a 16 Int dwarf, playing 'against type' is no longer an option.

If you want to play a dwarf wizard who struggles with low Int, then you can still do that.

(Of course, that was a based on a misreading of what the person was worried about.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, of course you can. But then it is like shooting in your own foot, when before it was an interesting choice.
As I see it, it opens up choices and likewise closes an equal amount of (sensible) choices.
Within a point buy system, I do see advantages, because not all increases are worth the same. And when I do create characters for fun in dndbeyond, yes, I look at stat increases and the new rule option will help me build "legal" characters.

In our game where we roll for stats anyway, a +2 to a low stat might be as good as an increase to a top stat and it does not feel "wasted". And stat increases do belong into a system where you roll for stats anyway. For point buy there are more elegant ways to handle it (lowered/increased costs for certain increases).

UngeheuerLich said:

Yeah, of course you can. But then it is like shooting in your own foot, when before it was an interesting choice.
As I see it, it opens up choices and likewise closes an equal amount of (sensible) choices.
Within a point buy system, I do see advantages, because not all increases are worth the same. And when I do create characters for fun in dndbeyond, yes, I look at stat increases and the new rule option will help me build "legal" characters.

In our game where we roll for stats anyway, a +2 to a low stat might be as good as an increase to a top stat and it does not feel "wasted". And stat increases do belong into a system where you roll for stats anyway. For point buy there are more elegant ways to handle it (lowered/increased costs for certain increases).

Click to expand...

That's fair, I guess.

I haven't liked racial ASI for years because I think they never did a good job reinforcing racial tropes, and 5e DnD never made optimization choices interesting because the numbers are, in the end, so close as to not matter.

jmartkdr2 said:

That's fair, I guess.

I haven't liked racial ASI for years because I think they never did a good job reinforcing racial tropes, and 5e DnD never made optimization choices interesting because the numbers are, in the end, so close as to not matter.

Click to expand...

I would subscribe to a DnD game without stat increases. On the other hand, I want certain species to be better at something than others. Real world biologie has differences too. Cultural training and knowledge also has its place. Both can be done differently (often better/sometimes worse) than with stat bonuses.
+1 hp per level of hill dwarves is thematic. They are just tougher.
+2 con however also serves dwarves well (+1 bonus to everything that is related to endurance). I think it is still better than giving a +1 circumstance bonus to everything. But maybe a short rest ability that allows a reroll will serve them equally well or even better.

Part of the issue here is that races are still designed to reinforce stereotypes not for wide range.

A Half-Orc may make a better wizard now, but it's still not going to be really good enough for an optimiser because they have all these melee centric features they won't make much use of, and may frustrate non-optimisers who may wish they had something more useful.

And on the other hand races that were designed with stereotypes in mind may become too good in other areas when abiility scores are moved around - Half-elves, Mountain Dwarves.

WOTC do need to be careful, because the flow on effect on unintentional synergies can create problems down the line. You don't want players creating bad press for 6E because the now 'iconic' rapier wielding Mountain Dwarf Bard is now no longer so effective. (See for example, the Ranger, which has gone through so many different incarnations and been twisted in so many different directions that there's no shared agreement about what shape they should be.)

I think giving players and DMs flexibility is good. However, I think there's a slippery slope here where too much change here might lead us down the 4e route again where there's disconnect between rules and narrative. WOTC needs to be really careful about changes they make like this or they might arrive at a place where race just becomes a cosmetic change. I don't think we're there yet but Crawford's rather sloppy reasoning/explanation about balance and such raises concern in my mind.

Deleted

Cadence said:

There were several groups of elves though. The Noldor were certainly known for their intelligence and making magical things. It may have been for the Sindar (I'm not recalling). Was it true for the Silvan (Nandor) elves? How much of the Noldor knowledge came from learning from the Valar?

(Is Noldor vs. Silvan in Tolkien the High vs. Wood elves of D&D?).

Click to expand...

I'm not a Tolkien Scholar, but I think if you have to get to the point of "but which elves were better in which ways" and "or did it all come from their personal and close relationship to their gods to get all that" I think we've moved beyond "Tolkien elves were dexterous and that was it"

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

Maxperson said:

They should exist, because the racial abilities support their existence. Elves ARE more dexterous than the baseline in D&D. This is fact. Halflings ARE more dexterous than the baseline in D&D. Half-orcs ARE stronger than the baseline in D&D. These are also facts. Those facts mean that the stat bonuses to reflect them should exist. Nothing in D&D is immutable, but not being immutable is not good cause to change them.

Click to expand...

Elves should get a +2 to Dex, because Elves are more dexterous as shown by their +2 to Dex.

Circular logic doesn't seem like a great place to go, especially since, if we want to base this back into Tolkien inspiring Gygax I would point out that Hobbits (which are halflings) were not particularly dexterous. They weren't running over snow and ice and performing the feats Legolas did.

And with this change, Elves can still be more dexterous than the baseline. But they can also be more graceful and beautiful, or stronger, or wiser or any of the other traits that Tolkien gave his elves. If I want to emulate Galadriel, I'm not exactly looking for her parkour abilities and her being an excellent shot with a bow.

Edit: I see that you thinkthis is linear, because you start with your assumption assumed. That elves are in fact more dexterous. While this is generally true, it is not always true. I have read literature where elves are literal plant people, or in fact no more skilled than humans, just longer lived.

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

Oofta said:

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

Click to expand...

Okay, if you want to gimp your character to be weaker for story reasons.... you still can. You can still play that Dwarven Bard with +2 Strength and +2 Con and even put your lowest stat in charisma.

The difference is that it is your choice now, not a restriction placed upon you by the system.

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

Alzrius said:

I disagree. I've seen plenty of campaigns that were all-human, and they were none the poorer for it. While Tolkien has captured popular imagination for what "classic high fantasy" feels like, it's not the ne plus ultra of it, and I feel confident that a game of D&D would still feel like a game of D&D without it.

Click to expand...

I feel like you entirely missed the point.

The point isn't that an all-human team sucks. The point is that you can tell the difference between a human fighter and a dwarf fighter. They aren't the same character at all. Similiar? Of course, they are both fighters, but they are also very different. And if they aren't that it is a problem.

And, like Cadence said. If DnD had not come out with the ability for people to play other races, and a different game did, then DnD would have to adapt or die. Most Fantasy and Sci-Fi TTRPGS allow for the players to be one of multiple "races" because that offers more freedom to explore the most common tropes of those genres.

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

Oofta said:

I just have fun playing unusual characters. I guess the reason that dwarven wizard arcane craftsman was fun was because practically all the other adventurers encountered were fighters or clerics. So it had fun RP possibilities and part of it was probably just reactions from other players.

As Syndrome said in The Incredibles, if everybody is special then no one is.

Click to expand...

I always have to chuckle when people quote this, because wow is there no good way for it to be taken.

For example, it is rather easy to look at that quote, and the idea that making everyone have super powers and tech that would allow them to compete with mortal gods born with power unattainable, and say that equality is evil.

After all, if everyone is equal, then no one is special and if no one is special that is bad.

I mean, that was Syndrome's "dark future" everyone has the tech to be equal to a man born with the ability to bench press trains. Everyone has the ability to defend themselves against a woman who can turn invisible or a man who can cut stone with his eyes.

Oofta said:

Well I've played a rogue with a 12 dex, but that's not the point. Using Tasha's, a PC dwarven wizard will never be unusual or unexpected. I assume it's actually going to be pretty common (in AL). Instead of "never seen that before" it will be "gee, yet another one ".

I don't get why people don't grasp the concept, even if they don't agree. No race/class concept will be unexpected or unusual, therefore you can no longer play an unexpected/unusual race/class combination. That may not matter to you, and it's certainly not the end of the world for me it's just an aspect of D&D that I will miss.

Click to expand...

Likely because it doesn't make sense from our perspective.

I've never seen a Dwarven Wizard. It is unexpected for me. Seeing more of them will be interesting.

But I have seen an Elven Rogue. Quite a bit. In fact, nearly all the time. High Elf rogue with Booming Blade. Yawn, boring, next please.

More Dwarven Wizards and potentially fewer Elven Rogues (because people may want to try Tiefling Rogues, or Gnomish Rogues) sounds like a win-win-win for me.

All of those "play against types" that you want to keep being able to play? I'd like to actually see them played. I'd like to finally see a Dwarven Wizard, but as things stand, no one at my tables wants to play one. If they become so common as to be boring... well, it least they are different than what is currently so common as to be boring.

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

And honestly, I think this is where I differ from the detractors of Tasha's the most.

I have never seen a Gnome fighter, A Dwarven Wizard, An Elven Paladin, or a Half-Orc warlock. I think those sound like fun concepts though. Those are characters I would be interested in seeing.

And no, I'm not going to see them as is. It has been nearly 6 years, no one at my tables is going to go for playing a character with a 15 as their highest stat. We've tried that a few times, it was always an issue. Every single time, it caused the player to have less fun.

Designing around challenges might be fun for people who like the mechanical puzzle of DnD, but that isn't a concern for me. I solved enough of those puzzles a long time ago in this edition. They don't interest me. Especially since, the clear answer is not to play against presumed type.The mechanical puzzle tells me that those characters are less optimal, and therefore should not be chosen.

Tasha's gives those characters a chance to make it to the table. And maybe the future of DnD is now a grey wasteland where everyone is the same, and it is so boring to see your 8th Dwarven Wizard with yadda yadda yadda. And none of us will have fun anymore, because there is no challenge to design around.

But, not only do I think that is not the case, I think I can prove it is not the case by pointing to another game that has existed for quite a few decades. Pokemon is not a hard game. In fact, beating pokemon as it is designed is trivially easy. When fans wanted more of a challenge, they came up with the Nuzlocke rules, which increased the difficulty of the game.

So, in that grey wasteland of the future where everyone is bored because challenge no longer exists? I imagine we would invent our own challenge. Maybe by doing something radical, like not use the optional rules and have static Racial ASI's again.

Just a thought.

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.

Click to expand...

This is objectively false. It does in fact have meaning at my table. Me and my players see that elves have +2 to dex, because they are on average more dexterous than the norm. I don't need to look at any other table to understand that and see the meaning that it imparts. Take that +2 away and either elves are NOT more dexterous than the norm or my elf has suffered a disconnect from his race, which might not be a bad thing if there is an in game reason, such as a family curse, to explain it.

DEFCON 1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure. I can turn all elves into clones of Barney the dinosaur if I want. So what. I'm playing the game, not designing it from the ground up. I shouldn't have to create re-dexterous elves when they are already dexterous in the descriptions.

DEFCON 1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is a Strawman of my position. I'm not interested in setting minimums other than what the +2 already provides. The +2 sufficiently covers that elves are more dexterous on average.

DEFCON 1 said:

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...

Click to expand...

If you're arguing that I can have dexterous elves by giving them dex abilities with my DM powers and that giving them said powers should be sufficient, then all DMs from the beginning of 5e already possessed the DM powers to make elves who were not more dexterous on average, and that ability was sufficient, so Tasha's didn't need to codify it.