log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

Azzy

Newtype
Interestingly, he confirmed the details the new "custom lineages" option, which is pretty similar to the Variant Human:

  • You get a +2 to place where you wish
  • Choose between darkvision or one proficiency
  • Pick a Feat
That sounds rather underwhelming. I was hoping for something a little more extensive.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FarBeyondC

Explorer
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.

If it's all about your character as an individual getting something (as opposed to your character getting something for being a general member of a particular group), what's the point of even noting that said character is a member of that group in the first place, mechanically speaking?
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
If it's all about your character as an individual getting something (as opposed to your character getting something for being a general member of a particular group), what's the point of even noting that said character is a member of that group in the first place, mechanically speaking?
If +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to you, why are you playing a dwarf?
 



FarBeyondC

Explorer
If +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to you, why are you playing a dwarf?

I don't recall saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me.

I don't even remember saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me mechanically, which I almost consider a fair- if mistaken- interpretation of my words.

But to answer the question you asked, because having that +2 Con is important enough to and for the character in question that it trumps any and all other criteria for choosing a race.
 



Undrave

Hero
I think since he brought up the sage advice video he meant to trade them all for skills.

Edit: yeah I just texted him back he is asking if I think he could trade them all in for any 7 skills/Tools.

he is looking for alchemy tools tinkerer tools theives tools and some extra skills. I also mid understood thinking he was making 2 characters 1 a monk and 1 a wizard. But it looks like he wants to make a monk/wizard

Edit2: now he is also asking if I think the book would let him trade other weapon profs from wizard class for skills

Hmm... why not? He's getting Alchemist Kit and Tinkerer Tools, which are generally just for flavour, then Thieves' Tools which aren't bad for having the Monk take over the role normally taken by a party's Rogue. Then they get a few more skills... so what? The Monk is generally an underpowered grab-bag of abilities anyway, and doesn't get Expertise like the Bard or Rogue. With more skills in general they could still fit the party role of skill monkey by having breadth of skills rather than depth. Having more skills doesn't generally break the game.

And if he wants to be a Monk Wizard he'll probably sacrifice SOMETHING to get more INT (probably CON) and one of his extra skill will probably go to Arcana, a skill that's useful to have but with niche uses.

I think it just depends of the rest of the party composition and if he'll be stepping on any toes. Also, remind your Monk that just because he's proficient, doesn't mean he STARTS with those in his inventory.

I say go for it! It'll be an interesting character. He'll probably be the master of out of combat stuff.

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.

I mean, those are optional rules. They're specifically there for 'out of the norm' characters. And don't obsess over what every other groups does, just take it one game at a time. How often do you start new campaign with new PCs anyway? You got time.
 

Zaukrie

New Publisher
If +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to you, why are you playing a dwarf?
To me, this raises the question.....are these all one race, that just look different? I mean, they can make babies together.....there are other mechanical differences, but there less and less....but then, we are talking about the PCs having different stats, the "typical" may have same stats.....
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
I don't recall saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me.

I don't even remember saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me mechanically, which I almost consider a fair- if mistaken- interpretation of my words.

But to answer the question you asked, because having that +2 Con is important enough to and for the character in question that it trumps any and all other criteria for choosing a race.
That is the thing. If you object, you are questioned about why it’s so important.

meanwhile a whole book is there saying that you can change it around because it does not fit someone’s vision and by extension is important.

the +2 is meaningful for a character or it’s not. We could also ask the elf who places the +2 in charisma if that is the only way he defines his character which is also uncharitable.
 

Johnny3D3D

Adventurer
I'm not sure that I understand the point of races and classes at this point.

I typically prefer classless games anyway, but I was of the impression that D&D had a reason for designing the game with those pieces included.
 

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
That sounds rather underwhelming. I was hoping for something a little more extensive.
Anything more extensive would need to be closer to Savage Species than a chapter in a multi-function book. And while I would support such a thing myself, I don't see the company going that route.

I do like that it's underpowered - I don't want people making new races for optimization. Playing dwarves for optimization I like (because I don't see enough dwarves as it is.)
 

grimslade

Adventurer
I'm not sure that I understand the point of races and classes at this point.

I typically prefer classless games anyway, but I was of the impression that D&D had a reason for designing the game with those pieces included.
Nostalgia. D&DNext kept a lot of sacred cows as a way to bridge all editions and end the Hateful Edition Wars. I hope this will open up the design space for new systems instead of rejiggering bonuses to change a Wild Elf into a Snow Elf.
 

jmartkdr2

Adventurer
I'm not sure that I understand the point of races and classes at this point.

I typically prefer classless games anyway, but I was of the impression that D&D had a reason for designing the game with those pieces included.
DnD does it (mostly) to make it easy to introduce the concepts to new players. Well, that's what it looks like to me, at least.

This book is for people bored with the existing options. One way to expand it is to give people who want it carte blanche to mess around with the existing templates.
 




doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The "need" is for situations where dm's are sticklers for only doing stuff allowed in the books - which is usually when you're not playing with the same people every week. (Or especially: when you aren't playing with the same dm every session.) AL, open-table games, West Marches, etc have a need to keep rules clear and consistent, so just houseruling to deal with special cases isn't a sustainable option. This book would add a bunch of pre-defined customization points to work from.
Also, some DMs prefer to keep the game as close to RAW as possible regardless of the campaign type, and that is perfectly valid.
 

I really thought about it, and probably it won't break anything. I would not allow trading every tool/weapon proficiency for dwarves and elves, because I personally think it is too much. Instead I might allow the trade of certain subsets. 4 Weapon proficiencies (some of them martial) of the elf pushes them way above what I woukd expect from a starting character, especially because those are more or less just ribbon features for 90% of the characters.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top