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

[Istbor]

I think the elves everywhere is twofold. One is the ingrained assumption that elves are basically the same as humans except better. As much as I enjoyed the LOTR movies, elves are awesome and dwarves are comic relief. I get so tired of Legoland clones.

It's also an issue with the supremacy of dex as an uber-stat. I understand the logic behind it, even if I do think it's one of the bigger weaknesses of 5E.

In any case which whatever set of rules you have there will always be one combo that many people that will consider "optimal". I'd say we'll see a lot of hill dwarf wizards for the armor and extra HP, but not sure those benefits will overcome inherent biases against short people.

Yes. Certainly on the Dex talk. It is a very compelling stat. I think as well, Elves by virtue of the shared media we have all consumed are thought of as graceful and beautiful. Who doesn't want to be that? Why wouldn't you want your character to turn heads when it strolls into town?

I hope you are right on the Dwarf Wizards. I really do. I miss dwarves. Usually players have a lot of fun with those characters. I just don't agree that these optional rules will make everyone everywhere see it as the no brainer option.

Who knows. Maybe I am totally wrong, this book will hit, and the next campaign none of my players choose an Elf.
(Though now that I think of it, Elves don't really have as grand a role in that world as the others. Sort of like the concept that, the age of Elves is fading, from Tolkien. Thinking about it now in light of this discussion, maybe I was doing that unintentionally to try and promote other race/class options. Hmmm.)

 

[Weiley31]

What about the tables that are split, meaning the DM does not have that power.

Then according to the Rules of Nature, whoever is still left standing at the table is the new DM.


May the odds ever be in your favor.

 

[Oofta]

Yes. Certainly on the Dex talk. It is a very compelling stat. I think as well, Elves by virtue of the shared media we have all consumed are thought of as graceful and beautiful. Who doesn't want to be that? Why wouldn't you want your character to turn heads when it strolls into town?

I hope you are right on the Dwarf Wizards. I really do. I miss dwarves. Usually players have a lot of fun with those characters. I just don't agree that these optional rules will make everyone everywhere see it as the no brainer option.

Who knows. Maybe I am totally wrong, this book will hit, and the next campaign none of my players choose an Elf.
(Though now that I think of it, Elves don't really have as grand a role in that world as the others. Sort of like the concept that, the age of Elves is fading, from Tolkien. Thinking about it now in light of this discussion, maybe I was doing that unintentionally to try and promote other race/class options. Hmmm.)

Well, we agree on our love of dwarves.

But ... I 've suggested and run single race campaigns in the past. If I suggest elves, everyone is on board. Suggest dwarves (or heaven forbid halflings or gnomes) and there's always at least 1 player who refused to play "short" races. The bias runs deep.

Just to be clear, I haven't even decided on this rule for my home campaign. It's not the worst change in the world, I'll just miss being able to play a PC that spits in the eye of conventional wisdom on the choice of race in AL.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So: Do people think that ASIs assignable to any ability score serve a purpose that isn't covered by simply assigning a high number to that score in the first place?

It allows you to start with a +3 in your class's key ability score regardless of race.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

I would argue if you are making another optional rule that alters the PHB, then they are re-writing it. Not completely.

In the end, it is really is just to make things easier. Most changes seem to follow that route, like water going downhill. Most like their water to flow downhill, but sometimes it leaks into an area they don't want it to.

For example:

• Dwarves can't be specific classes. Let's make it easy for every class to be a dwarf.
• Halflings can only be this strong. Let's make it easy and remove any stat cap.
• My wizard keeps dying because they only have 2 hp. Let's make it easier for wizards to survive.
• This Thaco is too difficult to understand. Let's make it easier for everyone to understand how to hit something.
• This wight just drained levels off my character, now I am not the same level as everyone else. Let's just make it easy and have everyone on the same level at all times. In fact, get rid of that experience tracker too. Let's switch to milestone.
• I can't cast a spell every round. That makes it tough since my wizard is weak. Let's make it easy and give them cantrips so they can cast a spell every round.
• My stat bonuses are almost non-existent because I rolled poorly. Let's make it easy to get a bonus. Let's lower the number. Let's make easy to keep everyone with bonuses using point buy.

Even in video games like the switch from Everquest to World of Warcraft exude switching to make things easier on the player base. This would be true for the switch to applying stat bonuses to whatever you want. Less thinking on how to optimize. Someone asked in another thread to speculate on games. This seems the best method prediction method I know of.

Again, most of us like our water to follow gravity, but there are times it floods someone's basement, and that is a bummer.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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?

I think more people would be happy with that, but the Dev team decided on the lazier answer.

I, for one, still think it's an improvement, even if its' far off from the best solution.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

For my part, they make the math of point-buy (by far my favored method) significantly less spiky. That is, shifting from a 13A-style "+2 from race, +2 from class, can't double up" method to modifying the non-linear point-buy numbers is....difficult, putting it mildly.

I presume, since you have said "a purpose that isn't covered" etc., that you want the point-buy values to permit achieving the same maximum ability score values under either system. Since every D&D (including the older ones where modifiers didn't grow linearly) has made specialization useful, that means we're looking at seeking at or near the highest modifier possible. I'll use the 4e numbers, rather than the 5e ones, mostly because 5e doesn't actually let you buy higher than 15 to begin with, and thus the point-buy value of 16 or 17 is (literally) undefined.

Under the baseline 4e rules, a Dragonborn with +2 Str, +2 Cha can achieve the following array easily:
Str 18 (16+2)
Con 14
Dex 8
Int 10
Wis 13
Cha 16 (14+2)

In order to buy this without the Dragonborn benefits, you would have to go from a 22 to 33 points--a full 50% increase. Notably, this would allow other arrays, such as the following, instead: 16/14/10/13/14/16. By enabling the same top-end results, you also expand what someone who makes relatively small sacrifices can do. That's a potential problem.

Obviously, things might work differently in 5e, particularly depending on how you price buying 16 and 17--the more expensive they are, the more points you have to provide, and the more benefit a "generalist" can squeeze out.

That was indeed my point. - I think simply increasing the points and buying limit would be superior to having to buy points and then assign more points with a different system.

The fact that it would allow more rounded ability arrays to compete with the min/maxed primary-focused arrays is a feature, not a problem to my mind.

However, if you don't like an optional rule... you don't get to demand that WotC NOT PUBLISH said rule in one their books. That's the point and has always been the point. Even if you think it ruins the game... the rule can be published, probably will be published, and then you have to make the CHOICE not to use it.

But apparently some of the people in this thread have a hard time making that decree. So rather than THEY make the decree of "No, you cannot use the Tasha's rule of placing your ability scores wherever you want"... they want WotC to a NOT PUBLISH that optional rule so that they don't have to.

Wow. That's a pretty horrific accusation.
Who in this thread has actually been demanding that WotC not publish these optional rules, rather than just expressing dissatisfaction at them or stating that they personally wouldn't use them please?

I think if you take a survey of all the DM's here, and ask them if their players' characters are:
A. min/maxed
B. optimized to be a bit above average
C. sub-optimal
If they voted for all the players they know and have played with... well, I have an idea of the outcome of that poll.

Those that have more players that optimize or min/max do so because they pair race/class combos. The min/maxers pair race/class/background/feat. The sub-optimal players don't pair anything. In fact, they choose to not pair the better race with class. Instead, they may be leaning heavily on a specific story they conjured. Or they are thinking of a specific hyper-focused skill.
(Side note: I had a wood elf barbarian that did piss poor damage and his AC was mediocre. But, he could move 120' per round and still take an action. Sub-optimal for the class. But fun because I got to run around like Usain Bolt.)

How are you defining optimal and sub-optimal here please? There are optimised builds that don't rely on racial ASIs, but rather other racial traits.

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?

That was my point as well. If you're assigning stats already, why have two different stages of assigning them?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It allows you to start with a +3 in your class's key ability score regardless of race.

Depends on the max score than you could buy with this replacement system, and the number of points that you get.

Would being able to purchase a score of 16 suffice, or do you think people would insist on 18, as that is the highest achievable score using the current point-buy system?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

But ... I 've suggested and run single race campaigns in the past. If I suggest elves, everyone is on board. Suggest dwarves (or heaven forbid halflings or gnomes) and there's always at least 1 player who refused to play "short" races. The bias runs deep.

Not really replying to your point but the idea of siyer ngle-race campaign made me think that I'd accept ability switching more easily if it was a single race campaign. You can be "a strong halfling" and your cousin can be "a nimble halfling" and your niece is "the wise halfling". As ability scores are only compared aroat und the table (NPCs are built differently anyway), differentiation can be desireable in an otherwise homogeneous group. I also see the appeal of having fixed races/stat pairing because it enforces differentiation. With all non-human races being "human with pointy ear/short size/hairy feet..." when played by humans, I can totally see a system where you can switch bonus wherever you want remove the interest of having distinct races (especially if you give everyone darkvision for free). Background diffferentiation is cultural, so you can already have it by being native of X, without needing to "member of race X". Racially homogenous groups will be easier to sell to my players as they won't regret the loss of opportunity of the bonus to their main stat.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I would argue if you are making another optional rule that alters the PHB, then they are re-writing it. Not completely.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. If the rule is optional and not in the PHB then unless one is aware of the new rule or bought the supplement then one can continue as if this new rule does not exist. In fact one could be completely unaware of it. Even if one is aware of the new rules but do not use then how has the new rules impacted ones game?

In the end, it is really is just to make things easier. Most changes seem to follow that route, like water going downhill. Most like their water to flow downhill, but sometimes it leaks into an area they don't want it to.

For example:

• Dwarves can't be specific classes. Let's make it easy for every class to be a dwarf.
• Halflings can only be this strong. Let's make it easy and remove any stat cap.
• My wizard keeps dying because they only have 2 hp. Let's make it easier for wizards to survive.
• This Thaco is too difficult to understand. Let's make it easier for everyone to understand how to hit something.
• This wight just drained levels off my character, now I am not the same level as everyone else. Let's just make it easy and have everyone on the same level at all times. In fact, get rid of that experience tracker too. Let's switch to milestone.
• I can't cast a spell every round. That makes it tough since my wizard is weak. Let's make it easy and give them cantrips so they can cast a spell every round.
• My stat bonuses are almost non-existent because I rolled poorly. Let's make it easy to get a bonus. Let's lower the number. Let's make easy to keep everyone with bonuses using point buy.

Even in video games like the switch from Everquest to World of Warcraft exude switching to make things easier on the player base. This would be true for the switch to applying stat bonuses to whatever you want. Less thinking on how to optimize. Someone asked in another thread to speculate on games. This seems the best method prediction method I know of.

These are all personal preferences, why should I abide by your choices? You can still play AD&D (or even Everquest), so can I but I choose not to.

Again, most of us like our water to follow gravity, but there are times it floods someone's basement, and that is a bummer.

Again I am not sure what the point is here. I will make an observation.
Us, as players and DMs can get off the bus anytime we like. If there are edition, rule supplements, even specific elements within books we otherwise choose to use. We set what we play and the extent of it. Mike Mearls, or Jeremy Crawford are not gong to force us to buy new supplements or implement new rules or even accept errata to existing rules.

However, expecting a company like WoTC to stop producing rule supplements that add new elements and rules is like expecting the sun to stop rising, the tides to stops flowing. They are in the business of producing rules supplements among other things. They sell, and as long as they sell they will continue to produce them. We can influence the process somewhat here, by anticipating some elements and how they may be best changes. By playtesting and responding to the surveys. New stuff will come and we can be thankful that in the current edition the pace is relatively slow.
I have managed in 5e, for the first time ever to get an AP to completion with only one major overhaul (Xanathers, i do not count the others as major) and now there is another. Previously complete editions passed by in the same time frame.