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

[Oofta]

I personally would be fine with that.

WotC, on the other hand, can't do that because they need to do rules changes that integrate with all the common methods of making characters, which includes rolling.

Not sure why it would matter. Putting your highest number in your primary ability is the same whether you roll or use and array.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One thing I do not understand. And please, someone help me here.

Of the players and DM's that do not want stat bonuses tied to race, but want it more open, why opt for any bonus? Why not just increase the standard array or point buy?

Well speaking for myself, First off, I am not actually bothered one way or another about fixed or free floating stat bonuses but.
Despite being involved in D&D for near 40 years and on ENWorld before 3.5 was a thing but after 3.0 was a thing, I do not have a lot of DM experience. Mostly because of where I lived, no nearby players and so did not have a regular game until the last 5 years or so, thanks Rol20/FantasyGrounds) also I am pretty causal and no desire (unlike many here) to design games or tinker with game design.

3.x left me pretty gun-shy on balance issues. Much too easy to tinker had have all kinds of unexpected blowback. So I am quite happy to let WoTC do it. ButI have become much more open to allowing UA material into my game.

 

[TwoSix]

Not sure why it would matter. Putting your highest number in your primary ability is the same whether you roll or use and array.

If you remove the bonus from race, and compensate for that by raising the point-buy total and changing the default race, you've now nerfed rolling unless you give them some compensating method.

I don't care because I don't use rolling in 5e, but it seems obvious to me that WotC can't just nerf rolling. They could certainly patch it by adding in a new rolling method as well.

 

[Oofta]

If you remove the bonus from race, and compensate for that by raising the point-buy total and changing the default race, you've now nerfed rolling unless you give them some compensating method.

I don't care because I don't use rolling in 5e, but it seems obvious to me that WotC can't just nerf rolling. They could certainly patch it by adding in a new rolling method as well.

There's not a 1-to-1 correspondence between point buy and rolling, but rolling on average will give you slightly better results. Of course the alternative is to just reduce point buy allocation by a couple.

But assuming we can balance it out, why have bonuses at all if they're free floating?

 

[TwoSix]

There's not a 1-to-1 correspondence between point buy and rolling, but rolling on average will give you slightly better results. Of course the alternative is to just reduce point buy allocation by a couple.

But assuming we can balance it out, why have bonuses at all if they're free floating?

Got me. I'm assuming WotC finds it easier to just decouple the bonuses than to adjust all the character creation math. If I had to guess, I'd assume 6e will have a more holistic method.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There's not a 1-to-1 correspondence between point buy and rolling, but rolling on average will give you slightly better results. Of course the alternative is to just reduce point buy allocation by a couple.

But assuming we can balance it out, why have bonuses at all if they're free floating?

That is because they are not re-writing the PHB.

 

[Oofta]

That is because they are not re-writing the PHB.

It's just a hypothetical question for the may-never-be-released 6E meant to understand a certain POV. Nothing more or less.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not sure why it would matter. Putting your highest number in your primary ability is the same whether you roll or use and array.

The difference is that if you roll, reducing the - 1 penalty to - 0 might be as worthwhile as increasing the 14 to 16.

You did not pay in points. There increasing the 8 to 10 costs 2 points, the 14 to 16 costs an indefinite number (probably 4 or 5).

 

[Istbor]

Let’s revisit that prediction in the next year.

you are missing the point by picking one race and class combination in the first place.

secondly, we will see more of whatever is suboptimal now, guaranteed.

In fact, look around. People are talking about the fact that they now can play things (class/race) combos that are not viable now. this is a strong suggestion that they will play things now that they did not play before.

how is that even questionable? How many halfling barbarians in particular? Who knows. But I am certain that any race that optimizers avoid with certain classes will be more common.

respectfully we are back to the notion that the changes won’t change anything. At your table of elves, you might be right. Our table never seems to have elves! Table by table of course things will vary. Overall in the population of players I stand by what I said.

goofy or rare combinations will become less rare. If that does not bother you, great! I think that in particular is a net loss for the game overall with the assumption I like class and race based assumptions and tropes as the baseline.

Yeah, amazing, that the attribute bonuses given to races was actually stifling people's creative drive to play them. Imagine if there was this optional rule coming out that let people play what they wanted instead of what the games arbitrary mechanics promoted!?

I agree. This doesn't really change anything at all, and yet we have people acting like the Elves as they known them will never be the same. As if they will one day have a group of players that they attempt to convince of Elven dexterity, but are dismissed? Something. There is a certain element of feeling as those what people liked of their hobby or childhood going to be lost. That isn't true. We will probably (hopefully) see more variety.

I don't agree this will be some net loss for the game. I think the impact is overblown. People are going to generally stick to whatever tropes they like. Some may experiment for a character or two, if they play that many different characters or games. Then, I would argue, go back to their favorites. Whenever I get to play I do like to try out a caster or something different, but the rest of the time I play some melee bloke. It is what I like. I'd say typically that character is Human. Though I do like Lizardfolk and Dragonborn. Those scaly boys... However contrary to your stated tastes, I don't give one fig whether people play to tropes or not.

 

[Istbor]

Meanwhile, one of the first PCs in my most recent campaign (2014-present) was a halfling barbarian, with a player who chose it because it was an unlikely combo. So YMMV, I guess.

Yes! My point exactly. It's like some people want everyone to have their experiences be the hobby as a whole's experiences. My fantasy is your fantasy. My fast agile Elves are your fast agile Elves. While that would really help us all with discussions and understanding because we would have a solid baseline, it is totally unrealistic.

People I have played with have so rarely played halflings that I question why it is even in the book sometimes. However, clearly there is a real want and need for it.

I think it makes sense that while some of us don't see a need for more fluid racial ability scores, there seems to be a real want or need for it (aside from some other societal reasons).

I want it, as a DM and an occasional player. It makes customizing my homebrew worlds so much easier, and I can also not have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind when I want to play that Lizardfolk Wizard that I am 'doing it wrong'.