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

[The DMD]

share this out with all your D&D friends.

Enter to win a copy of Tasha's Caldron of Everything. Terms and conditions apply. At this time contest is only open to US residents. Contest ends on 12/31/2020 with the drawing to follow. Click the link below for your entry

Tasha's Caldron of Everything

 

[Oofta]

Fair enough Chaos. In the end, one side can speculate that making everyone start with a 16 will not hurt anything. And the other side can argue that making races have different ASI's would keep archetypes, lore, and balance in play.

Both are speculation. I tell you what, since my groups always adopts any official book, we'll try it out and see. I will come back in a year and tell you my experiences.

But all this talk of character archetypes go me thinking about previous characters. In 5e, what have all of you played? Were they against type? How enjoyable were they? My list:

• Pacik - orc wizard - 15 int to start, but also 15 con and 15 strength - pirate/sailor background (CG)- one of my faves, could cast and smack with his mace!
• Welby - lightfoot halfling bard - 16 cha to start and 16 dex - trade background chef (LG)- died at level 3
• Sveld - wood elf babrbarian - started at 4th level because he replaced Welby, but had a 12 strength and 17 dex - hermit of Feywild background - could move at 6th level 120' per turn and still attack - a fun character to play in battle, outside, meh.
• Arex Droozinxerest - drow rogue - 16 dex and 16 cha - diplomat (from his home world, Astral Sea navigation stuff in this campaign, but drow were still backstabbing but not inherently evil) - was probably my strongest character - used cha to expand his family's name and dex in combat
• Frey - half-elf warlock (archfey) - 16 wis and 16 cha - entertainer background - never took a damage spell all the way through 20th level, just anything that would keep him out of harm's way including using his cha - one of my faves
• Hatch - human champion fighter - 16 str and 15 con - frontier type background - dual wields hatchets (was a lumberjack) - campaign we were required to have a person we loved missing, I chose my wife and twin girls - only character in all my years that I retired mid campaign, around level 10 because we found one of his girls (the other ) - so he left, it didn't make sense for him to keep risking his life - roleplaying wise he was one of my faves even though I continually got grief over my mediocre damage
• Tankard Brassballs - dwarf life cleric - min/maxed - masonry background - took over for Hatch - he's a fun typical dwarf and the opposite of silent brooding Hatch

Maybe because I choose to play several characters that are against type (and enjoy it because I know the rest of the tables will never play them), it heightens my need to protect that niche. Maybe. Just a thought. But I am curious to hear other characters (or DM's that had a favorite PC).

Let's see.

Krunch. My first 5E PC was a mountain dwarf rogue that started with a 12 dex (eventually got it up to a 14). Primary stats were strength and con. He ended up taking some levels of champion fighter to get two weapon fighting and an extra attack. Made it all the way to 20. Krunch was a mountain dwarf because of his heritage, he's the third generation of one of my first characters I ever played.

Tankard Strongbrew. Another mountain dwarf this time a paladin Oath of the Ancient (brewmasters). Started with a 16 strength, 14 charisma. Another one that I made in part because I have a tradition of my first organized play PC being a dwarf named Tankard.

Rev Bubba. Dragonborn cleric, 16 strength, 14 wisdom, 14 charisma. Fun war cleric played as a evangelical preacher type.

Doya. Ghostwise halfling. Pretty standard, 16 dex, 16 wisdom. Sadly died in an interactive at level 4 because they brought in an upgraded Mouth of Grolantar(?), had it teleport into the middle of combat (moving several PCs out of the way to make it fit) then had it attack all the PCs on the board (ignoring the enemy PCs). It then teleported out. Not that I was a bit peeved about that or anything.

Beuregard. Human paladin Oath of Vengeance. My current PC with a sad story. Lost his family to raiders from a collapsed army, seeking out answers to a mystery in the land of his ancestors. Variant human, took healer feat at first level to supplement party healing.

Gimdol. Mountain dwarf wizard arcane craftsman, just because I was having fun with the idea of a wizard running around in half plate. Started with 12 in strength, 14 dex, 14 intelligence. Best ability was con. Also just plain fun to play against type. Oh, and I have an awesome mini.

So yes, I play way too many mountain dwarves, but the only one it really made sense for was the paladin (although Krunch eventually kicked ass as well). If I cared more about ability scores, the cleric would have been a hill dwarf and the dragonborn would have been the paladin. But personally I care more about who the PC is than ability scores being "optimal" since half didn't start with a 16 in their primary.

 

[Scott Christian]

@Oofta - I also see a bit of a theme with ancestry and heritage. And as odd as it sounds, I don't really see that theme very much.

By the way, I feel like our two Tankards would do quite well together.

 

[Remathilis]

Debatable. Changelings still have a net +3 vs half-elf's +4, though they do have the ability to stack it (something I personally disagree with, but acknowledge is RAW).

Apparently, WotC agreed with me since the Eberron errata changed it to be +2 Cha, +1 any OTHER score. No +3 Cha for you!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Orcs are evil by default in the MM. Does that make everyone who uses the default alignment for the past several decades racist?

Well, you are kind of making an 'excluded middle' type of argument here. They have been pretty thoroughly explicated as being built on a set of racist tropes. The 'Tolkien Orc' is a racist construct, and the D&D Orc seems to be at least partially derived from that (surely the name 'orc' gives that away, reportedly the JRRT estate asserted that 'orc' was their IP, and only some fairly extensive scholarship demonstrated that it was a pre-existing word used in a similar way, orcs would not exist in D&D without Tolkien).

So, the original 1e AD&D MM orc is 'just a monster', but it IS humanoid and shares conceptual space with a racist construct. Now, the MM depicts them as somewhat pig-like, but it also describes their characteristics as quite similar to these negative stereotypes. This might be only a bit dubious and is undoubtedly not obvious to 12 year olds (most white ones at least). Then the PHB comes out and presents the Half-Orc, again with a lot of the same racist baggage, as well as the stigma of sexually violent origins (another racist trope no less).

I think people simply playing D&D and taking 1e at face value were, mostly at least, not consciously identifying with and amplifying these tropes. I know those I played with most likely weren't! So, were they 'racist'? Not really, but this depiction wasn't HELPING, and they may have been racist for other reasons unrelated to D&D, which D&D again was not helping. Plus over time Orcs got MORE human-like and more Tolkien orc-like, which didn't make the situation better.

I think it is quite fair to ask that the game be less racially insensitive and that it avoid propagating racist tropes. That doesn't make it a (heavily) racist thing, but it did have elements of racism in it. When you are subject to that, it is pretty obnoxious to see it in every element of your life (I am not a minority, so I am taking this from experience with other people).

 

[Oofta]

Well, you are kind of making an 'excluded middle' type of argument here. They have been pretty thoroughly explicated as being built on a set of racist tropes. The 'Tolkien Orc' is a racist construct, and the D&D Orc seems to be at least partially derived from that (surely the name 'orc' gives that away, reportedly the JRRT estate asserted that 'orc' was their IP, and only some fairly extensive scholarship demonstrated that it was a pre-existing word used in a similar way, orcs would not exist in D&D without Tolkien).

So, the original 1e AD&D MM orc is 'just a monster', but it IS humanoid and shares conceptual space with a racist construct. Now, the MM depicts them as somewhat pig-like, but it also describes their characteristics as quite similar to these negative stereotypes. This might be only a bit dubious and is undoubtedly not obvious to 12 year olds (most white ones at least). Then the PHB comes out and presents the Half-Orc, again with a lot of the same racist baggage, as well as the stigma of sexually violent origins (another racist trope no less).

I think people simply playing D&D and taking 1e at face value were, mostly at least, not consciously identifying with and amplifying these tropes. I know those I played with most likely weren't! So, were they 'racist'? Not really, but this depiction wasn't HELPING, and they may have been racist for other reasons unrelated to D&D, which D&D again was not helping. Plus over time Orcs got MORE human-like and more Tolkien orc-like, which didn't make the situation better.

I think it is quite fair to ask that the game be less racially insensitive and that it avoid propagating racist tropes. That doesn't make it a (heavily) racist thing, but it did have elements of racism in it. When you are subject to that, it is pretty obnoxious to see it in every element of your life (I am not a minority, so I am taking this from experience with other people).

Most games (and movies, etc) that involve killing enemies has prop stand in bad guys. That's the role orcs have always had in my games and is probably the default assumption for most people for the majority of D&D's history. Any association to real world people is coincidental.

So I fundamentally disagree, but I'm not going to discuss this further.

 

[tetrasodium]

Most games (and movies, etc) that involve killing enemies has prop stand in bad guys. That's the role orcs have always had in my games and is probably the default assumption for most people for the majority of D&D's history. Any association to real world people is coincidental.

So I fundamentally disagree, but I'm not going to discuss this further.

That's fine when your prop bad guys are nazi's, demons, evil wizards, muderers, & so forth... not so much when your bad guys are basically "this minority group"

 

[Oofta]

That's fine when your prop bad guys are nazi's, demons, evil wizards, muderers, & so forth... not so much when your bad guys are basically "this minority group"

Dude, I'm not going to get into this. Have a good one.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Most games (and movies, etc) that involve killing enemies has prop stand in bad guys. That's the role orcs have always had in my games and is probably the default assumption for most people for the majority of D&D's history. Any association to real world people is coincidental.

So I fundamentally disagree, but I'm not going to discuss this further.

That is the problem, it isn't 'coincidental' at all. Tolkien LITERALLY consciously modeled orcs on people of Asian origin. He flat out states it in no uncertain terms in his letters. He even elaborates on the racially motivated themes of his work!
So orcs ARE associated with real people in the real world BY DESIGN. And then they are used to depict stand-in evil people. Beyond that, many of the descriptions are also drawn from exactly the same language used FOR CENTURIES to describe other oppressed minorities. Fitting almost to a T (well, OK, MOST depictions lack the tusks, lol).
I don't ENTIRELY disagree with you. I don't think that Gary Gygax sat down and thought "I'm going to make a racially derogatory monster now." I never met him myself, but I don't get the impression he was a bigot. I expect he was just (like me I might add) a white guy who never really had to think about what some PoC might think of a humanoid monster which was derived from a depiction of his race, which was cast as an inherently evil 'person' fit only to be slaughtered. It really never occurred to ME until MANY years after I started playing D&D, and even then I had to discuss the topic with people of various ethnicities in order to really fully appreciate the dimensions of the problem.
So, its OK. Everyone gets a free pass on what went before. However, knowing what we know now, it really isn't conscionable to do or say nothing. We should just revisit these things, decide to make them more than 2-dimensional, and/or try to divorce them from their unfortunate connotations and past. That may mean making Orcs different. I'm betting you can still have some 2D cut-out bad guy orcs! Maybe they're just not quite so blatantly racist in stereotype. Maybe they're also not the only orcs out there, and maybe there's at least a bit more nuance to them (IE maybe their actions have some reason to them). It isn't that hard. Heck, there have been examples of perfectly OK orcs for decades, they are just not the most common depictions.

And pretending the issue doesn't exist won't make it go away. If you really could care less if people are hurt and offended, well, that's up to you.

 

[Oofta]

That is the problem, it isn't 'coincidental' at all. Tolkien LITERALLY consciously modeled orcs on people of Asian origin. He flat out states it in no uncertain terms in his letters. He even elaborates on the racially motivated themes of his work!
So orcs ARE associated with real people in the real world BY DESIGN. And then they are used to depict stand-in evil people. Beyond that, many of the descriptions are also drawn from exactly the same language used FOR CENTURIES to describe other oppressed minorities. Fitting almost to a T (well, OK, MOST depictions lack the tusks, lol).
I don't ENTIRELY disagree with you. I don't think that Gary Gygax sat down and thought "I'm going to make a racially derogatory monster now." I never met him myself, but I don't get the impression he was a bigot. I expect he was just (like me I might add) a white guy who never really had to think about what some PoC might think of a humanoid monster which was derived from a depiction of his race, which was cast as an inherently evil 'person' fit only to be slaughtered. It really never occurred to ME until MANY years after I started playing D&D, and even then I had to discuss the topic with people of various ethnicities in order to really fully appreciate the dimensions of the problem.
So, its OK. Everyone gets a free pass on what went before. However, knowing what we know now, it really isn't conscionable to do or say nothing. We should just revisit these things, decide to make them more than 2-dimensional, and/or try to divorce them from their unfortunate connotations and past. That may mean making Orcs different. I'm betting you can still have some 2D cut-out bad guy orcs! Maybe they're just not quite so blatantly racist in stereotype. Maybe they're also not the only orcs out there, and maybe there's at least a bit more nuance to them (IE maybe their actions have some reason to them). It isn't that hard. Heck, there have been examples of perfectly OK orcs for decades, they are just not the most common depictions.

And pretending the issue doesn't exist won't make it go away. If you really could care less if people are hurt and offended, well, that's up to you.

I disagree with most of what you state but the admins have asked us to drop this. Leave it alone.