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

[SkidAce]

I have jokingly posted in discussion before about my house rule...no dwarven wizards*

It started as an explanation for why there weren't any in the game mechanically...so we created a story reason.

Fast forward about 30 plus years, and there are still no dwarven wizards in the campaign world. In lore, its forbidden, its a curse, its the end of the world think of the children and the dwarves will hunt you down etc etc...

Add in Tasha's... Mechanically someone who played a dwarven wizard (cause a player can if they want) would not be "playing against type".
But the character would be. I think with Tasha's that's where we will end up. Player freedom with expectations being "in world" instead of mechanically and across the playerbase.



*runesages are okay.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

If I can ask, in your mind, what is the worst case scenario for this optional ruleset?

At a more abstract level, the worst case is demihuman races losing definition and becoming more human-like. IRL there are no other races, so a player needs hooks to role-play.

From a world-building perspective, I can work with Dwarves having superior hardiness and build their communities and lore around that. On the flip side, humans being individually inferior works for me too - either being in greater quantity (lifespan is important!), or in a subservient position. Stripping Dwarves of their Con bonus chips away at a core race dynamic.

As for the game table, this is where I think it does its least and worst. Game balance-wise, a Str 17 Halfling is not going to tip anything. Story-wise however, Halfing PC after Halfling PC are going to chip away at Halfling race identity to a point where there's a disconnect between table play and lore around, say, their light fingeredness. Who can predict?

Maybe in 5 years players might say 'aw not another Mountain Dwarf wizard, in similar vein to how they did Drizzt 20 years ago.'

Put in broad strokes, I'm opposed to chipping away at the lore of D&D until it becomes a game I don't recognize.

Back to 4E, I gave that a serious effort to like and indeed there were improvements I (in the majority) supported. But looking back, one of its many sins were changing too much lore.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not true. Now you can go against the type by playing an elf wizard instead of the optimal mountain dwarf wizard!

Although human with lightly armored is not much worse than the mountain dwarf wizard... And a wood elf has 10ft movespeed advantage... And running away is an important part of being a wizard...

 

[Scott Christian]

Thanks for the response, I originally responded because I was confused by your previous post. i do agree that there has been a strong trend toward casual playstyles over the years. I see that as partly inevitable, there are so many competing time sinking hobbies. The same trend is observable in wargames. To the benefit of wargames as far as I am concerned. I think I can recreate old school aspect of the game easily enough, If I want and the old rulesets are still there.

That is a great point about the time sink. I definitely agree. I have even pushed for campaigns to not last more than two or three months because of this. Thanks for the reply.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I strongly expect those rules to no longer be optional in future editions, since "dwarves can have whatever stat bonuses you want" is inherently more player-friendly than "dwarves have a fixed stat bonus". And player-friendly sells more books, if nothing else. This won't ruin the game, obviously, but it will certainly change it. Whether it'll be better (much more experimentation with race/class combos), worse (everyone will be optimized for their class with only superficial differences), or a little of both (most likely) remains to be seen.

What future editions will likely do, IMO, is present exactly what 5e rules will be as of Tasha's, except the Tasha rules will be in the PHB. So, you'll have tough dwarves and agile elves and halflings, and explicit rules in the PHB to make those into agile dwarves if you want, and also have better rules than are in Tasha's for making a completely new race package. Oh, and it will all be called Lineage or Folk or Ancestry or something like that.

TBH, I can't see any downside.

Say what you want about D&D's base, but a huge majority of them choose to make the stronger character as opposed to the one that focuses on other things. That is what making everything equal does.

Source, by any chance? My read of what data we have from DDB and WoTC runs counter to your claim. People make more stock Human Champion fighters (including when one looks only at users of DDB who have the PHB unlocked) than any other Human or Fighter, and IIRC more of that combo than any other specific combo overall. That by itself suggests the opposite of what you claim, here. In fact, many of the most popular subclasses (and again, @BadEye confirmed in a thread and on twitter IIRC that these rankings don't change when you just look at users who have paid content unlocked) are very much not the most powerful subclasses, but are instead iconic from a story perspective.

My experience about extolling the virtue of change is that one day you find you've somehow been left behind. Sure change happens, but it doesn't have to be for the better, and there no guarantee it'll always align with your values.

Despite stamping and swearing I'll never touch Tasha's, it'll probably get some use at the table. Much of that UA went down well with us.

IME, when change leaves me behind, I eventually find that I was wrong and the change was right, and while I never feel embarrassed by the things I've grown out of over the years, I certainly sometimes wish I'd gotten over my resistance to change a little more quickly.

I have seen 0 halfling barbarians, and only 2 halfling PCs in all my years.

And I've seen several halfling barbarians, and at least 20 halfling PCs just while playing 5e. They were just as popular in 4e, and combined with an even wider range of classes. Earlier editions they were much more confined to rogues and sometimes heavily dex based rangers or monks.

 

[GreenTengu]

I would like to say that this makes the Hobgoblin race not as utter trash at being anything but spellcasters.....

But... no... it does nothing to fix that the race is nothing but a bunch of useless armor/weapon proficiencies and a badly designed version of Bless/Bardic Inspiration that only applies to yourself.

Now-- if those useless armor/weapon proficiencies could be traded for something that isn't nullified the moment you choose any class but caster, it would mean something. (Of course, Elf and Dwarf get more of everything regardless)

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

A simple way to address things would be to remove the escalating costs for higher scores in point buy - then there wouldn't really be any downside to just adding the extra points to the point buy.

I'm not really sure the escalating points serve a particular purpose anyway (especially when there is an upper limit. Sure you could possibly end up with three 16s and three 8s, but how many people are likely to do that, and would it really be optimal anyway? (And the benefit would be it would make it less punishing to actually have a high Intelligence if you're not an Artificer or Wizard)

The escalating costs are to represent that a +3 in one thing is regarded as better than a +1 in three things. - As evidenced by the pressure to ensure than all characters can get a +3.
Thus they give a bit more balance and open up options like dropping to a +2 to be a much more rounded character or get a decent score in a non-vital, but character defining score.

Sigh

And all the writing I ever do for my characters is now completely meaningless, because all people will see is that gasp of horror I want my classes to have a 16 in their primary stat.

I should be burned at the stake for such heresy. I mean, it isn't like literally every single class advises to do exactly that. Nope, I am a monster who never writes three page backstories tying in the lore of the world, family connections, offering plenty of potential plot hooks for my DMs. None of that is true, I just want more big numbers.

And this is why I shouldn't have clarified what else these rules do beyond what putting my highest stat in the right place would do. Because now, I will be seen as a liar for all the story stuff I honestly do love. After all, three days of advocating for the story potential was just called nonsense, and this, this is my true, dark intention. Min-Maxing.

There is nothing inherently wrong with optimising your characters and wanting to have the maximum bonus possible for your primary stat. It certainly doesn't preclude also caring about your character's character and background.

Sure, if you got rid of racial ASI's all together and just made point-buy with a high enough value to get the same value of scores it would be effectively the exact same thing.

Not quite: Assigning point buy and then getting a flat bonus to assign as well encourages min/maxing ability scores rather than a more even spread.

I think that would not happen for 5e though, because they would need to rewrite every single race, and that isn't likely, but it would accomplish the same thing.

The only races that would need rewriting are those that are balanced around not having a +2 and +1 bonuses. Even without adjusting those, I don't think balance would be worse than the proposed system. (Though I might give standard humans a few extra points to spend.)

Wish I had understood that intent from the beginning, so I could avoid the next few days of being called a liar by the people I'm discussing with.

That's more on me for not detailing the extra provisos I was assuming would be assumed.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't see how any of this has any bearing on the "point of classes".

It appears that the game (D&D) is increasingly moving away from pre-packaged classes and races. I play games which are "classless," so I am not opposed to that idea, but it appears to be at odds with the way D&D is typically designed.

 

[Helldritch]

I mean... Isn't that the literal purpose of this optional rule? It's for campaigns in which the group does not want to have to play against type in order to play the character they want.

This optional rule will not match every style of play.

In the Dungeon Master chapter on creating a campaign, one of the first steps is to "Set the Stage" by communicating "any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races."

Any rule option, from new Player Races to Feats to Point Buy to Firearms, is optional. Each group gets to decide what fits their play style.

Now I know you are worried that players will force you to use these options. Is this a pattern you have seen with optional rules in the past? And if your players are so excited about these options, maybe they don't want to play against type?

An optional rule should add something. Not make so deep a change as to change lore, expectations, race history and consequently character creation and playstyles. This book is doing exactly this.

It is not as for example, the optional rule of flanking. Flanking only change the positioning of opponents in combat. This is the first optional rule which make such drastic changes to the core game.

It appears that the game (D&D) is increasingly moving away from pre-packaged classes and races. I play games which are "classless," so I am not opposed to that idea, but it appears to be at odds with the way D&D is typically designed.

And this is exactly what I have been saying all along. Moving away from what has defined D&D for 5 decades is not something I look at favourably.

I had people shove 2E books in my face and proclaim. "THIS IS AN OFFICAL PRODUCT. WHY CAN'T I USE IT. YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS THE WRITERS". DMs. It your game. If you want ban things, do so. Now if you ban too much, you will be playing with yourself only.

And you'll get that a lot with Tasha's book. Optional or not, people will expect DM to use it because it is an official book. I am old and stubborn enough to say no. My DM's style is liked enough that I will not have trouble keeping my players and even find more if the fancy strikes me. But as I said, I know a lot of DMs that won't be able to hold against the almighty official aspect of the book.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1) No we won't. When everyone is good at everything, you can not play against type as their is no expectations.
2) By "bound" I mean that when there is an unusual class/race combination, I will play the foes/npcs with the expectations that the character is something else. Ex, a dwarf in armor is a fighter or cleric, not a wizard. So the foes will not jump to the conclusion that the dwarf is a wizard. It will take some times. Time that a good player will put to good use.

3) Many of the games that made those change are now lost to history and vanished from memories. A few are still there but they were/are far less successful than D&D. Classic tropes are still appreciated by a lot of people, whether you like it or not. Tradition is not a bad thing and the races have met the expectations of players of all walks of life for 50 years now. Change for the sake of change is rarely a good thing. If ever...

1) Yes we can, because expectations exist in more than just mechanical numbers. High Elves have a strong Tradition of magic. Playing a Barbarian is against type. They may be mechanically good at it now, but it is still against the norm.

Unless you are trying to say that the only type of difference that matters is raw mechanical numbers.

2) Right, I was never bound by that. All Dwarves wear armor according to the PHB, so seeing a Dwarf in armor tells you nothing about their class except that they aren't a Monk. And, this is such a hyper specific thing, that some characters took advantage of the fact that their wizard didn't look like a wizard, that it really is not an issue I'm concerned about.

3) And tradition for the sake of tradition is equally bad. These racial ability score changes have reinvigorated my interest in various races, and made me think more deeply about how certain classes would be handled by that culture. That is a good thing. Not doing it just because people think we shouldn't doesn't make sense to me, especially since it all seems to come from either A) This isn't how we have always done it or B) My special character won't feel as special if they aren't handicapped by the rules, and I need to choose to handicap them.

And I don't find either position very compelling.

You kinda proved my point without saying it.
With Tasha, no more going against the current or the optimal choices. Everything is optimal. Always.

M_Natas ended his post with "Now I don't need to always play variant human" and you want to take it as a bad thing, because there is now no optimal race?

This is such a strange position to take.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't care if my PC has a 16 in their primary ability score and never have. Other people do and that's fine, it's their PC. But there are times that I want to play a PC with a perceived deficit such as a dwarven wizard or half-orc monk. Sometimes I like to play against type. You don't and that's fine. It's not your PC.

Before Tasha's, it's always been possible to play any class with with a 16 in their primary ability. After Tasha's there will be more options, but there will be no options to play against type. So people that care about that 16 "win" while those that want to play against type "lose".* It also takes away one more choice that requires an ever-so-slight compromise in theoretical optimization.

Ultimately I think the end result will be a lot more elf barbarians and a tiny increase in dwarven wizards. For a short period of time they may even feel like your playing against type. In the long run it will just be par for the course as race becomes ever less important and it's only lore and cultural differences that most people ignore that distinguishes between them.

*Win and lose are in parenthesis because although I see this as an issue, it's not the end of the world and it's fate accompli in any case. I just want to preempt claims that I'm saying it's the end of D&D as we know it.

You don't care if they have a 16.... but sometimes you want to play with a perceived deficit (ie, less than 16)

Before Tasha's it was always possible to play a class with a 16 (As long as you played one of the optimal races, limiting your selection sharply) and it was possible to play against type (ie able to play a race that was non-optimal and would start with less than 16, and be at a deficit. )

Now after Tasha's it will still be possible to play a class with a 16 (In fact, any race can get you there greatly expanding your options of play) but you can no longer play against Type (because... you can't be at a perceived deficit by having less than a 16? But you can, it is just a choice now, not an enforced difference.)


So... people who care about the 16 only... don't care. It is people who care about having more racial options to match with more classes who win.

And the people who don't care about a 16... but do care about having a 14... I guess they lose because they now have to actually make a choice instead of saying "the rules made me do it"


I mean, there is no choice being taken away here. You want a Dwarf wizard with a 14 INT and their bonuses in Con and Str? You can make that choice. We are literally adding choices, not taking them away. But the problem seems to be that you don't want a choice. You don't want to choose to have less than a 16, you want to be forced to have less than a 16... and man, that is your own problem.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now-- if those useless armor/weapon proficiencies could be traded for something that isn't nullified the moment you choose any class but caster, it would mean something. (Of course, Elf and Dwarf get more of everything regardless)

Part of the Tasha's rules allow for exactly that. It is weapons for other weapons or Tools ATM, but it certainly changes things up.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An optional rule should add something. Not make so deep a change as to change lore, expectations, race history and consequently character creation and playstyles. This book is doing exactly this.

The more I read this, the more it sounds like the sky is falling.

The lore of the races will never be the same
We can no longer have expectations
Their History is erased

Everything is different!


And yet... not really.

No lore has been touched, no history has been touched, and in fact, this change actually helps make some things fit. Players might play the Dwarven Public Speaker, or the Elven Barbarian from the deep forests (wild elves anyone? They were a thing). These are characters that should exist in the world.

Dwarves would likely have wizards, without a good lore reason not to, because magic is simply too useful and too necessary for defense. Elves would have clerics.

There is nothing in the lore or expectations to tell me that a Tiefling Druid or Ranger should be any stranger than a human one. In fact, the "animals are kinder than people" trope would lean into them existing.

And, since these are an optional rule for players, not a mandate for all races... if you want to keep the world the same, it is.

There is nothing lost. There are no choices being taken away. This is all being added, with the option for keeping things exactly the same being in there as well.