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

Helldritch · Oct 23, 2020

M_Natas said:
That is a very meta way at looking at that. Playing against type for you seems to be measured in "what players in general usally do and what thy don't do because of some rules". It is not on the level of game or table, but you want to play something, because other tables, other players around the whole world don't play that thing, because it is suboptimal because of the current rules. At least that's how I understand this statement.

For me that is really strange, because for me it really doesn't matter, what other players in other tables do and I don't have any need to differentiate me from them by playing something they normally don't do.
What counts is what is on my table. I don't play AL (because that doesn't exist in Germany), I only have my two tables where I play. On one I DM. And as the DM I build some NPCs aginst Type, like a halfling barbarian that beat the crap out of the Dragonborn Monk in my campaign in an arena fight ^^, but I didn't build it because it was against type compared to other tables, but because the thought of a halfling barbarian was funny (and it would be in general in most fantasy worlds not matter the rules). And as the DM I could give the halfling the stats it needed to be an effective barbarian.
At the same time, as a player, 50% of the time I have to play variant human, because my character concepts only rellay work nice if I get that special feat (like my celestial Warlock who needs magic initiate (bard) to pretend, he is a bard or my life cleric with tavern brawler feat to show she had a tuff upbringing). Now with Tasha I finally can use other races or create my own lineage to do so without defaulting to variant human.

I don't even take players into consideration when assessing what an opponent will think.

Helldritch · Oct 23, 2020

Chaosmancer said:
1) Yes we can, because expectations exist in more than just mechanical numbers. High Elves have a strong Tradition of magic. Playing a Barbarian is against type. They may be mechanically good at it now, but it is still against the norm.

But their strong tradition is exactly what gave them their stat bonuses.

Chaosmancer said:
Unless you are trying to say that the only type of difference that matters is raw mechanical numbers.

Never said that. But the mechanical numbers are a reflection of the races' choices as a whole. Thus their traditions.

Chaosmancer said:
2) Right, I was never bound by that. All Dwarves wear armor according to the PHB, so seeing a Dwarf in armor tells you nothing about their class except that they aren't a Monk. And, this is such a hyper specific thing, that some characters took advantage of the fact that their wizard didn't look like a wizard, that it really is not an issue I'm concerned about.

That you never cared about that shows a lot of things. Good for you. Bad for me as we will never have a common ground. I now understand a lot of your positions in the forums.

Chaosmancer said:
3) And tradition for the sake of tradition is equally bad. These racial ability score changes have reinvigorated my interest in various races, and made me think more deeply about how certain classes would be handled by that culture. That is a good thing. Not doing it just because people think we shouldn't doesn't make sense to me, especially since it all seems to come from either A) This isn't how we have always done it or B) My special character won't feel as special if they aren't handicapped by the rules, and I need to choose to handicap them.

And I don't find either position very compelling.

No player will gimp his/her character if it is not mandatory. The need to play a dwarf wizard, or an elf fighter based on strength goes against the archetype but it is not a bad thing. It forces the player to think outside the box to achieve his/her goal. With Tasha, all characters will always be optimal. The very definition of character against type concept will disappear sooner or later.

Chaosmancer said:
M_Natas ended his post with "Now I don't need to always play variant human" and you want to take it as a bad thing, because there is now no optimal race?

This is such a strange position to take.

No, there a now no suboptimal races. Less can be more. Now, Natas told us exactly what I have been (and along with a few others) all along. All races are now optimal choices, it will only be fluff that will define your character. All races will now feel like Vhumans. Elf? Vhuman with an elven mask. Gnome? Vhuman with a gnome mask. Tiefling? Vhuman with a mask. Ho yes, a small fluff here and there. But with no hard limitations, they'll all look more or less the same in the end. I have seen this in other games. They went down the drain. Don't even remember their names either, nor do I care to try to remember by going in the storage boxes that I have in the locker downstairs.

Here is an example
A player has a choice between Race A, B, C, ... Z.
Now with Tasha, taking either of these races bring just a power. In the end, it has no bearing which race you'll chose as the only thing that will put them apart will be the look, and maybe a race's special hability.
Player 1 chose Race A. He chose barbarian and can fight when reduce at 0 because he can get up at 1 hp.
Player 2 chose Race B. He chose barbarian too and can fight when reduce at 0 because he get up at 1 hp... Ooppsss! What were the races? Don't know. Don't care. Just the mask differs.
It is so much more poignant when you have...
Player 1 chose a half orc barbarian.
Player 2 chose a Tiefling Barbarian of Mammon ancestry... How will player 2 cope with what player 1 can do? How will player 2 distribute his stats? So many choices with so much consequences. In the previous, both will be equally adept at being barbs. But the second case brings so much more to the table than the first one...
I know which scenari I prefer.

Don Durito · Oct 23, 2020

Zardnaar said:
Damn they just obsolete vumans.

Even, if there's more to the published rules then has appeared so far, this sort of thing is a genuine potential issue.

Balance becomes more important the more things are levelled off and not siloed. Half-elves are a strong race already, but that is somewhat lessened in impact by the fact that they are not strong for all classes. Charisma is not a huge secondary benefit for most classes.

The more you put things in a level starting place, the more important it becomes to make sure you've got the numbers right.

(In part because even a small difference drives behaviour, if it's clear and easily quantifiable. eg. There's only really a small difference between starting with a 16 or a 14 in a main stat, but I've seen very few players choose to actually do the latter).

Scott Christian · Oct 23, 2020

doctorbadwolf said:
Source, by any chance? My read of what data we have from DDB and WoTC runs counter to your claim. People make more stock Human Champion fighters (including when one looks only at users of DDB who have the PHB unlocked) than any other Human or Fighter, and IIRC more of that combo than any other specific combo overall. That by itself suggests the opposite of what you claim, here. In fact, many of the most popular subclasses (and again, @BadEye confirmed in a thread and on twitter IIRC that these rankings don't change when you just look at users who have paid content unlocked) are very much not the most powerful subclasses, but are instead iconic from a story perspective.

You realize I am talking about stat bonuses and combining that with class, right? Are you going to tell me the data shows that most character's made don't have optimal stats in their primary attribute? (There is no difference between a 16 and 17. And if you are using point buy, 17 is as high as you can go.)

But if you just want to use data, I prefer to think like this:

How many of those champion fighters were DM's making for the newbie coming into an Adventurer's League session? How many champions were made during GenCon so players who join a table could have something to play that was easy? How many of those champions were going to be used as NPC's or hired henchman that a DM could just hand off to players? How many of those champions were the first character built by someone logging in so they can test the system? How many of those champions played past one session? How many leveled up past level 2? How about past level 4?

You see, the problem with numbers is unless you get a breakdown that one can analyze, they can't be used to prove much. I will give you, it is the only numbers we have. But they mean so little. And yet, they still do not counter my point about people making optimized characters.

Chaosmancer · Oct 23, 2020

Helldritch said:
But their strong tradition is exactly what gave them their stat bonuses.

Their strong tradition of magic gives them Dexterity? Obviously not, it gives them a +1 Int.... the exact same a human with no strong tradition of magic.

And Hobgoblins, who have not generally been seen as masters of Arcane Power.

Helldritch said:
Never said that. But the mechanical numbers are a reflection of the races' choices as a whole. Thus their traditions.

Under this interpretation though, Tasha's rules are even more imperative. How am I supposed to show a rebel against elven traditions if I can't change the stats that are derived from those traditions?

And how would we show different elves of different traditions, if not by the ability to move scores? I'm sure the elves of Athas are not like the elves of Faerun, so they would have different stats.

Helldritch said:
That you never cared about that shows a lot of things. Good for you. Bad for me as we will never have a common ground. I now understand a lot of your positions in the forums.

If you think this gives you that much insight, you may be reading too deep into it.

I mean, if I assume the racial traits are true the conversation would go

"He is wearing armor, wizards don't wear armor. He must be a cleric"

"Fool, he's a dwarf, all dwarves wear armor into battle. He isn't wearing any religious iconography, why would he be a cleric?"

"A fighter then."

"With no shield and wielding a staff? Use your head, that's an arcane focus. This guys a mage for sure."

After all, this is literally the type of conversation my players would have. So, some INT 16 monsters should be able to follow that same logic with no issue. Also, there is version two

"He's a fighter get him"

fireball

"He's a Wizard, gank him!"

Helldritch said:
No player will gimp his/her character if it is not mandatory. The need to play a dwarf wizard, or an elf fighter based on strength goes against the archetype but it is not a bad thing. It forces the player to think outside the box to achieve his/her goal. With Tasha, all characters will always be optimal. The very definition of character against type concept will disappear sooner or later.

I'm sorry, you lost me.

No player will intentionally gimp their character.
But, playing a Dwarf Wizard or Elf Strength Fighter isn't a bad thing, even with their lower scores, because of whatever reason you want to give.

But, with Tasha's they now have a choice to bump those scores, from scores that weren't a bad thing to an optimized version...

And if they don't do it they are gimping their character... which they weren't doing by... I don't know, playing an un-optimized race to start with?

In fact, Oofta specifically wants scores less than 16, to prove his point that having a score less than 16 doesn't matter... yet at the same time if given a choice he would never chose to have a score less than 16....

You guys are arguing in circles by this point.

Helldritch said:
No, there a now no suboptimal races. Less can be more. Now, Natas told us exactly what I have been (and along with a few others) all along. All races are now optimal choices, it will only be fluff that will define your character. All races will now feel like Vhumans. Elf? Vhuman with an elven mask. Gnome? Vhuman with a gnome mask. Tiefling? Vhuman with a mask. Ho yes, a small fluff here and there. But with no hard limitations, they'll all look more or less the same in the end. I have seen this in other games. They went down the drain. Don't even remember their names either, nor do I care to try to remember by going in the storage boxes that I have in the locker downstairs.

Here is an example
A player has a choice between Race A, B, C, ... Z.
Now with Tasha, taking either of these races bring just a power. In the end, it has no bearing which race you'll chose as the only thing that will put them apart will be the look, and maybe a race's special hability.
Player 1 chose Race A. He chose barbarian and can fight when reduce at 0 because he can get up at 1 hp.
Player 2 chose Race B. He chose barbarian too and can fight when reduce at 0 because he get up at 1 hp... Ooppsss! What were the races? Don't know. Don't care. Just the mask differs.
It is so much more poignant when you have...
Player 1 chose a half orc barbarian.
Player 2 chose a Tiefling Barbarian of Mammon ancestry... How will player 2 cope with what player 1 can do? How will player 2 distribute his stats? So many choices with so much consequences. In the previous, both will be equally adept at being barbs. But the second case brings so much more to the table than the first one...
I know which scenari I prefer.

Where is the race for B, because unless he is a Half-Orc, there is no way to get that trait.

This is like arguing every race will now start with Great Weapon Master.

And, I honestly hate this argument that without a +2 Strength +1 Con a half-orc is only a human in a rubber mask. Because then.... what do we call a Goliath (+2 Strength +1 Con) an Orc (+2 Strength +1 Con), or a Minotaur (+2 Strength +1 Con). There are four races with this exact same stat array. Does that mean that a Minotaur is just a half-orc with some fake horns glued on? Or are they really Goliaths?

I mean, take those scores away, and they are just humans, because they all have the same scores. So, having all the same scores now means they are unidentifiable as being different right?

Same with Elves, that +2 Dexterity and +1 Wisdom is the exact same as multiple halfings (Ghostwise, Loutsadan, and the Jorasco), Aaracrockra, and Kenku. Are these races really the exact same? Just rubber masks that the elves can wear?

No. They aren't. They never have been. And this insistence that they will be just seems completely unfounded.

Don Durito · Oct 23, 2020

Chaosmancer said:
And, I honestly hate this argument that without a +2 Strength +1 Con a half-orc is only a human in a rubber mask. Because then.... what do we call a Goliath (+2 Strength +1 Con) an Orc (+2 Strength +1 Con), or a Minotaur (+2 Strength +1 Con). There are four races with this exact same stat array. Does that mean that a Minotaur is just a half-orc with some fake horns glued on? Or are they really Goliaths?

Well...it seems pretty obvious that the stat bonuses are a pretty big part of how the distinct characteristics of the race are represented - now it was never a good way to do that. And to 5e's credit it at least realised that something additional is needed, which is why races get quite a lot of additional features. (13th Age is bad at this - it gives stat bonuses that are made meaningless by class and an encounter power that doesn't always do much at all to emphasise the idea of an elf, or a half elf - thankfully it has backgrounds so they can take up a lot of the slack). So taking it away has to make some kind of difference there, especially if you're not replacing it with anything else.

This is part of the issue. How do you represent the huge size difference between a Goliath and a Halfling? There seem to be three ways: the Goliath gets powerful build, the halfling is small, and the Goliath gets a strength bonus.

Now none of this is remotely realistic; concessions are made to playability (otherwise we'd get the ridiculously overpowerd 2e Dark Sun giants or something like that). The rules represent the difference rather than simulate it. However, if you take away one of those points of distinction you do weaken the representation.

So there's the issue, the +2 weakness is such a weak distinction that it shouldn't matter if you effectively take it away - but it's weak by design and neccessity - and while weak it's still doing a job.

Oofta · Oct 23, 2020

Chaosmancer said:
Their strong tradition of magic gives them Dexterity? Obviously not, it gives them a +1 Int.... the exact same a human with no strong tradition of magic.

And Hobgoblins, who have not generally been seen as masters of Arcane Power.

Under this interpretation though, Tasha's rules are even more imperative. How am I supposed to show a rebel against elven traditions if I can't change the stats that are derived from those traditions?

And how would we show different elves of different traditions, if not by the ability to move scores? I'm sure the elves of Athas are not like the elves of Faerun, so they would have different stats.

If you think this gives you that much insight, you may be reading too deep into it.

I mean, if I assume the racial traits are true the conversation would go

"He is wearing armor, wizards don't wear armor. He must be a cleric"

"Fool, he's a dwarf, all dwarves wear armor into battle. He isn't wearing any religious iconography, why would he be a cleric?"

"A fighter then."

"With no shield and wielding a staff? Use your head, that's an arcane focus. This guys a mage for sure."

After all, this is literally the type of conversation my players would have. So, some INT 16 monsters should be able to follow that same logic with no issue. Also, there is version two

"He's a fighter get him"

fireball

"He's a Wizard, gank him!"

I'm sorry, you lost me.

No player will intentionally gimp their character.
But, playing a Dwarf Wizard or Elf Strength Fighter isn't a bad thing, even with their lower scores, because of whatever reason you want to give.

But, with Tasha's they now have a choice to bump those scores, from scores that weren't a bad thing to an optimized version...

And if they don't do it they are gimping their character... which they weren't doing by... I don't know, playing an un-optimized race to start with?

In fact, Oofta specifically wants scores less than 16, to prove his point that having a score less than 16 doesn't matter... yet at the same time if given a choice he would never chose to have a score less than 16....

You guys are arguing in circles by this point.

Where is the race for B, because unless he is a Half-Orc, there is no way to get that trait.

This is like arguing every race will now start with Great Weapon Master.

And, I honestly hate this argument that without a +2 Strength +1 Con a half-orc is only a human in a rubber mask. Because then.... what do we call a Goliath (+2 Strength +1 Con) an Orc (+2 Strength +1 Con), or a Minotaur (+2 Strength +1 Con). There are four races with this exact same stat array. Does that mean that a Minotaur is just a half-orc with some fake horns glued on? Or are they really Goliaths?

I mean, take those scores away, and they are just humans, because they all have the same scores. So, having all the same scores now means they are unidentifiable as being different right?

Same with Elves, that +2 Dexterity and +1 Wisdom is the exact same as multiple halfings (Ghostwise, Loutsadan, and the Jorasco), Aaracrockra, and Kenku. Are these races really the exact same? Just rubber masks that the elves can wear?

No. They aren't. They never have been. And this insistence that they will be just seems completely unfounded.

And the award for twisting statements around goes to ...

Eh. Never mind. It's pointless trying to have a discussion. Have a good one.

Helldritch · Oct 23, 2020

Chaosmancer said:
Their strong tradition of magic gives them Dexterity? Obviously not, it gives them a +1 Int.... the exact same a human with no strong tradition of magic.

Nope, not only dex, but also intelligence. And... Who plays the non Vhumans? Very rare. But humans are adaptive if you go this way. Good everywhere, master of none. (HO GOD! NON VHUMANS ARE ALL BARDS!!!!!! Time to burn my books...)

Chaosmancer said:
Under this interpretation though, Tasha's rules are even more imperative. How am I supposed to show a rebel against elven traditions if I can't change the stats that are derived from those traditions?

Exactly my point. You want to play against tradition? Go ahead and play with what life gave you. You want to be strength base paladin high elf? Go ahead. Put highest score in strength and so on. But you still get a cantrip, one 1st level wizard spell to use and a nice bonus in dexterity and intel. Now that is playing against type. And yes, we had one of these too. With twelve players, it is not hard to see a lot of unusual character types/concepts.

Chaosmancer said:
And how would we show different elves of different traditions, if not by the ability to move scores? I'm sure the elves of Athas are not like the elves of Faerun, so they would have different stats.

Just as I said above. Plus, the elves from Athas are not necessarily PHB Elves. It depends on the setting too. I would expect Qualinesty to be different from the Kagonesti and the Dimernesti of Dragon lance. Some of these elves could be paladins even in 1st edition! The setting overrule the PHB. I fail to see what you don't see there.

Chaosmancer said:
If you think this gives you that much insight, you may be reading too deep into it.

I mean, if I assume the racial traits are true the conversation would go

"He is wearing armor, wizards don't wear armor. He must be a cleric"

"Fool, he's a dwarf, all dwarves wear armor into battle. He isn't wearing any religious iconography, why would he be a cleric?"

"A fighter then."

"With no shield and wielding a staff? Use your head, that's an arcane focus. This guys a mage for sure."

After all, this is literally the type of conversation my players would have. So, some INT 16 monsters should be able to follow that same logic with no issue. Also, there is version two

"He's a fighter get him"

fireball

"He's a Wizard, gank him!"

LOL. That same dwarven wizard could/would/might make a few fighter levels. Ours was carrying a battle axe strapped on his back. He never used it, but he was carrying it. He had his wand ready to be used if necessary but he was also using a lot of spell that did not required material components just for the show and to better confuse the enemies.

Chaosmancer said:
No player will intentionally gimp their character.
But, playing a Dwarf Wizard or Elf Strength Fighter isn't a bad thing, even with their lower scores, because of whatever reason you want to give.

But, with Tasha's they now have a choice to bump those scores, from scores that weren't a bad thing to an optimized version...

And if they don't do it they are gimping their character... which they weren't doing by... I don't know, playing an un-optimized race to start with?

In fact, Oofta specifically wants scores less than 16, to prove his point that having a score less than 16 doesn't matter... yet at the same time if given a choice he would never chose to have a score less than 16....

You guys are arguing in circles by this point.

Nope. You fail (again) to understand. Playing against type because the system forces you to is not the same thing as willingly gimping your character. There is a whole level of difference that you do not seem (or want) to understand here. Choosing to play a dwarven wizard when you know that your bonuses normally push you toward fighting classes is rewarding. Doing it when there is not costs associated with that choice is just pointless and almost downright stupid. Playing against type, to prove that you can do it is good. Willingly gimping your character by making poor choices voluntarily is exactly a stupid thing to do.

Why do mountain climbers take the hardest mountain? Because it is hard. But if the same hard mountain has an easy path, it is not the same. Saying I played a dwarven wizard before Tasha will not bear the same accomplishment when played after. The first one will be way more rewarding as the second.

Remathilis · Oct 23, 2020

So the other day, I was working on a character idea for a one shot Halloween adventure, and I decided to do something spooky. I wanted to do a Shadar-kai shadow sorcerer. Seems a natural fit, right?

Then I look at their modifiers: +2 Dex (because elf) and +1... Con?!

When I think Shadar-kai, my brain instantly gravitated to spellcasters: shadow sorcerer, hexblades, illusionists and necromancers, death or trickery priests. Yet somehow they miss all the spellcasting ability mods. They make fine rogues, and decent shadowv monks or gloom stalker rangers (though they lack a Wis mod to boost those) so they really feel like their ability mods work against thier natural type. But it really got me thinking how even that lousy plus +1 is enough to dissuade me from playing a spellcaster. All the info on the difference between a +3 and +2 is in my brain, but man, it had real feelsbad when designing him.

Maybe Tasha though will incentivize some combos that are on theme but not mechanically optimal: a sea elf storm sorcerer, a tiefling assassin (without relying on 9 new subraces), a hobgoblin battlemaster, or a triton oceans druid.

I think it's easy to get hung up on the crazy outliers like strong halflings or genius orcs and forget that there will be many on point characters enhanced by this. Just like how at the dawn of 3e people were hung up on gnomish necromancers and dwarven druids were, forgetting how it also opened up Elvish bards, halfling rangers and other "that makes sense" combos that saw more play.

Helldritch · Oct 23, 2020

Remathilis said:
So the other day, I was working on a character idea for a one shot Halloween adventure, and I decided to do something spooky. I wanted to do a Shadar-kai shadow sorcerer. Seems a natural fit, right?

Then I look at their modifiers: +2 Dex (because elf) and +1... Con?!

When I think Shadar-kai, my brain instantly gravitated to spellcasters: shadow sorcerer, hexblades, illusionists and necromancers, death or trickery priests. Yet somehow they miss all the spellcasting ability mods. They make fine rogues, and decent shadowv monks or gloom stalker rangers (though they lack a Wis mod to boost those) so they really feel like their ability mods work against thier natural type. But it really got me thinking how even that lousy plus +1 is enough to dissuade me from playing a spellcaster. All the info on the difference between a +3 and +2 is in my brain, but man, it had real feelsbad when designing him.

Maybe Tasha though will incentivize some combos that are on theme but not mechanically optimal: a sea elf storm sorcerer, a tiefling assassin (without relying on 9 new subraces), a hobgoblin battlemaster, or a triton oceans druid.

I think it's easy to get hung up on the crazy outliers like strong halflings or genius orcs and forget that there will be many on point characters enhanced by this. Just like how at the dawn of 3e people were hung up on gnomish necromancers and dwarven druids were, forgetting how it also opened up Elvish bards, halfling rangers and other "that makes sense" combos that saw more play.

And this is where we differ. IT would be a GREAT character to make as warlock/shadow sorcerer.
But check Hex Blade
ST: 8, Dex: 13 (15), Con: 14 (15), Intel: 12, Wis: 10, Cha: 15
Level 4 ASI: Con 16, Cha 16.
Level 8 ASI: Cha 18
Level 12: Medium Armor Master Dex at 16
You lost a +1 to hit/dmg. A cooperative DM will manage to give you a magical sword of the +2 type to compensate (or not, but I would). A +1 is not that of a big deal. If you rise as high as 16th you'll have a 20 charisma, but so many good stories to tell on how you overcame the problems you had with different solutions than an optimal build. As soon as level 4 you'll get more HP and will just be a bit behind in attack. Again, a DM that wants to help you create such a character and build a good story with you would help you with an early magical item to help you out, where an optimal build might not see such an item before level 6 or 7. At level 12, the Medium armored master will boost your AC by two and will help you. Yes it will have mean a lower AC in the meanwhile, but again, a DM to help you might bring a nice magical breast plate in your way?

Yes you will say that it is entirely dependent on the DM. But unless the DM is adversarial, you should not be afraid to build such a character. Players and DMs are there to build a story. I would not let a player down with such an interesting character, especially if the back story is good.

I am a ruthless DM that do not hesitate to TPK when players make blatant mistakes. Combats are highly tactical and enemies do not make mistakes very often. Yet, when a player brings me such a character, I do not hesitate to nudge things his way a little bit (and never at the cost of the other players' fun). You see, I would even insist that your patron be the Raven Queen and not a nameless sword or whatever. Your Queen in the Shadow fell could sent you on a mission for her and on the way, put things for you to discover to better further her plans and make sure you could fulfill your part of the contract with her.

We have such a character (Not a Shadarkai though) Hexblade Halfling with the Raven Queen as a patron and his goal is to kill Alaster (we are playing DH and will go through DoTMM) because the Raven Queen has a quarrel with Alastair. That players is exactly like a your Shadarkai but not so different race bonuses. I added a few quirks here and there to his contract and so far, his character works quite fine even with a "low" 15 charisma. He is fighting with... a spear to better skew his enemies... Surprisingly, he took immediately Medium Armor Master at level 4... The +1 spear helps him a lot more than anticipitated as the Divine soul sorcerer is quick to use bless whenever moderate to high AC opponents appears. The artificer is also quick to put his "pet" in help mode so that the Hexblade has advantage to hit when it gets a bit rough. It is a nice coincidence that we have an Hexblade that is about just like what you wanted to create.