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

[Sacrosanct]

Jeremy also hints at something that I think gets lost a lot, and that being how we perceive racial ability score adjustments. I.e., we see "Elves get +2 Dex" means that all elves, or elves in general, are more dexterous than anyone else. Instead, it actually means, "YOUR character who is an elf is more dexterous." When you change your perspective from "most races like X" to "my character gets this as an individual", it's much more easy to accept how a dwarf might be a wizard, or a halfling is extra strong. Because it's about your PC who is an exception, not a modifier to the average halfling, or elf, or dwarf.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure I like that. Then people are picking backgrounds just to min-max (even more so than now). Frankly, I like the idea I've seen posted elsewhere of just getting rid of the +2 bonus for race, and apply it directly based on class. That's really the end goal anyway.

I'd do both. I am definitely a proponent of having a stat bonus tied to class and not just race. It's how I'm doing it with Chromatic Dungeons.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

The whole thing will be a mess. Made up races? So world building is not important. I dunno this was a solution looking for a problem. I don’t get it.

 

[Zaukrie]

For tables that use the array, just change the array and get rid of the bonus.......for other tables? Just give everyone a bonus they can put where they want works for me. These are the PCs, not the tropes/paragons/most common people of that type.

 

[Mistwell]

The whole thing will be a mess. Made up races? So world building is not important. I dunno this was a solution looking for a problem. I don’t get it.

An optional sidebar in an optional book, and you're fretting someone might use it to create something new for their game?

 

[Warpiglet-7]

An optional sidebar in an optional book, and you're fretting someone might use it to create something new for their game?

Just wait. It will be a thorn in the side of a lot of DMs who will get hassled for being too restrictive. I am also concerned about archetypes and a common language getting dismantled.

when we say ‘dwarf’ it carries some baggage we all know an understand.

why not just get away from a class based system too? These changes might not make a bad game but I cannot see it as furthering any shared fiction.

at this point are we even allowed to think dwarves are tough? Does that stereotype too much for some people’s comfort?

it won’t ruin my fun. I have good friends I game with. We played a little redbox in grade school together, AD&D in high school through 2000 and are now professionals with kids. I don’t think we are going to dump the D&D legacy.

I am worried about the health of the brand. We hear it all the time. What separates D&D from all the imitators? It’s more than an ampersand. For now.

hell I might buy the book! I just think the rationale presented in the video is disingenuous and the effect on the game subpar.

I think the changes are driven by a zeitgeist and not the brand and it’s place. We will see.

I think playing against type is officially done.

will I be tempted to use some
Of this. Maybe. But I think it goes to and comes from a different place than is presented here.

 

[Sir Brennen]

The whole thing will be a mess. Made up races? So world building is not important. I dunno this was a solution looking for a problem. I don’t get it.

A mess for who? They're optional rules, after all, and don't have to be allowed at any given DM's table.
Aren't all races made up?
If a DM makes up a race, he may be doing so because in building his world the existing races don't meet something he envisions. So it actually enhances world building.
If a player makes up a race, he needs the DM's permission, and this becomes a point of collaborative world building.
I don't get it.

 

[grimslade]

Ability bonuses attached to class makes sense. You are typically going to have an aptitude for your vocation. In the end, it is not game breaking to switch out ability bonuses. The benefit is small and it is contained by the ceiling for abilities. Also, it is an optional rule. It allows for customization of characters but also allows for customization of settings. Maybe, dwarves in your home campaign aren't 'hearty', they are weakened by the weird radiation of the Underworld that has pushed them toward alchemical industry and the selection of intelligence as a dominant trait. At the very least it should reduce the 8 billion sub-races of elves...

 

[Warpiglet-7]

A mess for who? They're optional rules, after all, and don't have to be allowed at any given DM's table.
Aren't all races made up?
If a DM makes up a race, he may be doing so because in building his world the existing races don't meet something he envisions. So it actually enhances world building.
If a player makes up a race, he needs the DM's permission, and this becomes a point of collaborative world building.
I don't get it.

Ok, perhaps this is true. I actually reconsidered. I guess if you have the pathology of players pushing nonsense it did not begin and end with this book.

this could be a dm tool too. Ok then. I reconsidered.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm still on the fence on this. If we no longer have tropes then are you ever really playing against type? If every PC dwarf is a wizard (and they're one of the best options for it now) then my dwarven wizard suddenly doesn't stand out.

It's fine for those that want it, but I'll discuss with my group on the impact of the new rules before I use it for my home game.

We still have tropes. The pop culture notion of what the different fantasy races are like goes well beyond the current edition of D&D. Letting players swap out racial ability score increases won’t suddenly make people stop thinking of dwarves a short and and stout, elves as lithe and nimble, halflings as small and clever, or orcs as big and strong. The type still exists to play against, it’s just that now, if your DM chooses to allow this optional rule, you’ll be able to play against it without being less effective at your class role than someone who played to type.

Perhaps somewhat ironically, I’m actually not the biggest fan of this change and probably won’t be using it at my table. I’m a strong advocate of not shoehorning certain races into certain classes via racial ASIs, so you’d think I’d be all for this rule, but to me it feels lazy. Instead of actually designing races that feel and play truly differently without the crutch of ASIs, they just let you swap out features however you like, effectively making race a purely cosmetic choice. That’s... kind of the opposite of why I am against racial ASIs.

Of course, I recognize that the racial redesign I would want is beyond the scope of Tasha’s Cauldron. It would require a full on 4.5 or 6e (or A5E...) to really pull off in a way I would find satisfying. As it stands, this optional rule is a fine band-aid fix for groups who want that kind of flexibility, and I’ll continue doing what I’m doing on my own.