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

[Don Durito]

Doesn't this make Half Elves really, really, good?

Swap out that +2 for a feat and you've basically got a variant human with Darkvision and an extra skill proficiency.

 

[jgsugden]

Sadly: The more choice you have, the more room for optimization there is. I fear that we'll see a whole bunch of "this is broken" threads here as people explore the new options.

 

[Oofta]

A relatively small problem from WotC, who can do no wrong.

Just because I'd rather suggest solutions than endlessly complain about things I cannot change does not mean I think WOTC can do no wrong.

I could give you a list of complaints, but instead I'd rather work around them.

 

[Dausuul]

Hmm. So it will now be possible to start with an 18 in your primary stat (base 15, +2 for lineage, pick a feat that grants +1).

It's not really a big deal, since you're still capped at 20 - you just get there sooner. But I'm curious if this was a side effect or an intended goal.

 

[Weiley31]

I'm interested in how far it can go or tweaks the community will do with it

Like I've always wanted to play a Duhallan. So that would be something coverd with a +2/+1 stat bonus, fey ancestry since it is an Unseelie Fey, then it has something that gives it gives it some spells at certain levels ala most other races with similar leveling (ala Gensai). Add in Disadvantage effects due to gold(as a balancing for blindesense) and stuff.

It's pretty much what I expected it to be honestly: both the Custom Lineage and Tasha's ability score rules modification.

 

[Don Durito]

Hmm. So it will now be possible to start with an 18 in your primary stat (base 15, +2 for lineage, pick a feat that grants +1).

It's not really a big deal, since you're still capped at 20 - you just get there sooner. But I'm curious if this was a side effect or an intended goal.

I thought you could only swap out the +2 for a feat. You don't get both, (although theoretically it sounds like a Mountain Dwarf might be able to do this).

 

[Guest User]

Sure but "broken" in Internet parlance just means "unexpected" or "surprising".

Also don't forget the Sorcerer and Bard can as an option rule retrain one spell per long rest. The age of Wizardry is over.....

 

[Azzy]

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.

While I understand your concern, I think this will play out the same way as racial class limitations being abandoned. In the end, very few will lament their loss and elves will still be elves and dwarves will still be dwarves.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't necessarily disagree, but there's only so many levers to pull and buttons to push to reinforce archetypes and ability scores are one of those.

I'm sure someone somewhere has come up with a different, quite possibly better, alternative but supporting certain archetypes is one of the traditional pieces of D&D. Sometimes tradition needs to be jettisoned, other times it's like playing Jenga and you never know which piece will be the one that makes the whole structure collapse.

No single change will make the game no longer D&D, and I am not saying this particular change is that big in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it will be good, maybe it won't. Like I said I'm still on the fence and haven't made up my mind. It just means that if I ever get around to playing my half-orc monk he won't be particularly unique any more. I kind of like race meaning more than general appearance.

 

[Morrus]

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.

It's a pretty common perspective.