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

[jasper]

Non Vhumans? The most common? Well... I saw one or two in the beginning of 5ed. Now, with contacts with over 30+ DMs and their groups, I can tell you that no one play a Non VHuman. Everyone start with a feat. It has been what? 4, 5 years that I have not seen a single non variant human? The standard one might well not exist. For all intent and purpose, in my area, Vhuman is the default.

And My AL group has a mixture of humans. So default for you location.

 

[Scott Christian]

Maybe it was started by that, but I think you may have missed just how harmful some of the stuff in the game could be seen as.

People like throwing about the "but they are different species" argument and following it up with absurd examples, like is a field mouse as strong as an elephant. But that misses so much of the actual point.

For example, one poster during that explosive few weeks of discussion pointed out a rather startling fact. According to scientific studies women tend to have over 20% less upper body strength than men of similar build and training (I saw in just a breif google search numbers ranging from 20% to 40%.). Are you are of the absolute largest difference in strength in Dungeons and Dragons Races? +0 to +2 to the score, which translates into a maximum of 5% difference.

The difference between genders is minor in the real-world, and is still four times larger at a minimum than the 5% difference between "species" in DnD.

Which, makes a lot of sense, when you stop and think about it. The vast majority of differences in size between the DnD "species" is a foot or less, and generally less than 20 lbs. That is a margin of error that can fit within the same weight-class in just about any martial arts or wrestling competition. Are some more extreme? Yes, obviously, and I've shown them in this very thread. But, even at those extremes, the actual "in the world" difference is minor.

A big deal at the table. A big deal for a player character rolling dice, but for a physical world? Not even worth talking about.

I will say that I always thought the old D&D strength score of 3-18 with %'s modeled "real world" a bit better.

I mean, there are a bunch of average people running around in this world. They can squat a couple hundred pounds, deadlift about the same. Lift a hundred pounds over their head. They are the 10's.

Then there are the strong. Buff, and going to the gym all the time. Lifting. They are pretty strong. They are the 12-16's.

Then there are the professionals. They are at 17's.

Then you have the really really strong. The 18's. But even to say their equal is silly. I mean, Arnold compared to Halfthor is the same as comparing an average person to a pro.

I don't know, but since D&D often deals with elite people, I always thought the strata inside the elites should be recognized. There is smart. We all have met someone who has a 17 or maybe 18 intelligence. But then there is smart, the astrophysicists and elite MIT grads of the world. There is good looking and charismatic, 17 or 18. But there are only a few Stings or Jennifer Anistons that can walk into a room and make everyone stop. The same can be said of dexterity and constitution. The only one I have a hard time reconciling this thought with is wisdom. Any suggestions?

I know this isn't really what we're talking about, but I thought it was a nice divergence.

 

[Scott Christian]

Dwarves would be another example of concept drift. Have a look at Flint in the Dragonlance novels and compare him to a lot of the Dwarves in art today. Somewhere along the way the Warhammer Dwarf won the cultural battle and became the image of the dwarf that stuck. Dwarves also seem to have just generally gotten bigger. No dwarves got a strength bonus before 4E and even then it only came late in the edition as an option presumably because people were complaining that as a race that was pushed towards Fighters they should have one. (And that was a mistake - they had already been given plenty of features to make up for their lack of a Strength bonus, so including one then made them both too strong and less interesting, because it made them the same as every other race with a Strength bonus.)

Interesting. Although Flint was still haughty and strong. Granted, not a bulky as the dwarves of today. I think there have been several influences. Everquest kind of made the dwarf cleric if memory serves me correctly. And Warhammer definitely made the build bigger. Source material is always a neat topic.

 

[Oofta]

Is it okay that some races have a higher intelligence than humans? Is it okay for gnomes to average a higher intelligence than humans? Does it only apply to PC races or all creatures in general? Is it okay that an ogre has a lower intelligence than a human? What about an Allosaurus? I mean, I can hear it now "That's stupid, dinosaurs aren't humanoid."

According to the game, being humanoid doesn't make you human, it's defined as "[includes] humans and a tremendous variety of other species. They have language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities (though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a bipedal form." They are separate species entirely. So saying they have slightly different characteristics doesn't bother me. Cats are different than dogs, that doesn't make dogs inferior, they are simply different species.

I think anything WOTC publishes if there are any distinguishing features between species is going to have someone, somewhere pointing their fingers and screaming "racist" at the top of their lungs. But since all races can have individuals that get to the highest tiers, I just don't see it. Having said that, I think either all PC races should have penalties or none should. But different bonuses? Not sure why it's a problem.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope. It's how this is flat out read. No interpretation necessary.

"Gold dwarves are common in the lands to the south and east. They are formidable warriors, proud of their long traditions, with strong ties to clan. They are gruff and haughty and have a love of fin e craftsmanship and an eagerness to trade."

From the Sword Coast 5e.

So, you pointed me to Mordenkainens, and when it didn't say what you wanted, you pull out the Sword Coast. So we are, as I suspected, now on the third book I need to read to understand the culture and why Hill Dwarves get a +1 Wisdom and why Mountain Dwarves don't.

But okay, I'll go read it, let us see how messed up this is. a few minutes later Okay, yeah, we have a problem.

See, this book does present Gold Dwarves this way. They talk about how Gold Dwarves are optimistic and their lands peaceful, they talk about how the Gold dwarves toil away at making perfect items.

It does not talk about how they rarely if ever see the sun, because they are constantly underground. It does not talk about the war they fought to build their homes. It does not talk about their intense suspicion of outsiders or their desire to flaunt their wealth.

And I'm left wondering, how do I square being optimistic and eager to trade with being suspicious and secretive towards everyone? The books give me no guidance on this, and in fact, it seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Almost as though there are two different versions of Gold Dwarves for Faerun. Mordenkainens' and the Sword Coasts.

And the same thing happens with Shield Dwarves. In Mordenkainen's it says "The openness of the shield dwarves as a people manifests on a personal level as well, with individuals being far more likely to travel among and make friends with other races." However, in the Sword Coast we get that " Living in a near-constant state of war for generations, shield dwarves are a hardy people, slow to trust, with long memories and often an equally long list of grievances against their ancient enemies." And actually calls out that the more conservative of the Shield Dwarves want to cut themselves off from the outside world entirely.

So, they are an open people who are much more likely to befriend other races and make trade agreements with neighboring nations, who are at the same time slow to trust outsiders and hold long grudges against anyone who wronged them.

And this kind of circles us right back to what I said initially. Mountain Dwarves and Hill dwarves across the books are nearly identical. If I take both of these books as being true, then both sections show an open people willing to trade who are at the same time great warriors with an abiding distrust of outsiders. They are both.

So, which book gives us the definitive answer? Or are they both true? Why are they contradicting each other? And why should a player or a new DM need to buy three different books to get a full image of what a dwarf is and why they have the stats they have?

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

I will say that I always thought the old D&D strength score of 3-18 with %'s modeled "real world" a bit better.

I mean, there are a bunch of average people running around in this world. They can squat a couple hundred pounds, deadlift about the same. Lift a hundred pounds over their head. They are the 10's.

Then there are the strong. Buff, and going to the gym all the time. Lifting. They are pretty strong. They are the 12-16's.

Then there are the professionals. They are at 17's.

Then you have the really really strong. The 18's. But even to say their equal is silly. I mean, Arnold compared to Halfthor is the same as comparing an average person to a pro.

I don't know, but since D&D often deals with elite people, I always thought the strata inside the elites should be recognized. There is smart. We all have met someone who has a 17 or maybe 18 intelligence. But then there is smart, the astrophysicists and elite MIT grads of the world. There is good looking and charismatic, 17 or 18. But there are only a few Stings or Jennifer Anistons that can walk into a room and make everyone stop. The same can be said of dexterity and constitution. The only one I have a hard time reconciling this thought with is wisdom. Any suggestions?

I know this isn't really what we're talking about, but I thought it was a nice divergence.

Wisdom is just a hard stat to define. It covers your connection to the world via Druidic and Clerical magic, it covers your ability to perceive and pay attention, your empathy and it also covers your willpower and ability to resist effects.

And then there is the traditional meaning of "wise" which is really just intelligence but not science or math.

I think it covers so much as a catch all, which makes it harder to define. I mean, do you define it via a person who has an easy time with visual acuity? Emotional Acuity?

Maybe you just look for the people who are insightful. Who can say and act in ways that cut through the world to the heart of issues. Which means the highest wisdom we are likely to find is around 14, because it is such a rare thing to find in people.

Sorry if I'm getting a bit heavy for a distraction, was watching heavy stuff before I got on EnWorld

 

[Maxperson]

So, you pointed me to Mordenkainens, and when it didn't say what you wanted, you pull out the Sword Coast. So we are, as I suspected, now on the third book I need to read to understand the culture and why Hill Dwarves get a +1 Wisdom and why Mountain Dwarves don't.

But okay, I'll go read it, let us see how messed up this is. a few minutes later Okay, yeah, we have a problem.

No. You asked where in the PHB or Mordenkainen's it said X, so I let you know. You're the one who brought setting specific dwarves into this, not me. The conversation went like this.

Me: The PHB describes ways that the Mountain Dwarf and Hill Dwarf stat bonuses can be explained.

You: But they have the same culture.

Me: They don't have the same culture(which is obvious as they live in different areas and focus on different things).

You: Where in Mordenkainen's or the PHB does it say that.

Me: Mordenkainen's does on page 71. Now, I was looking at the general dwarf section there where it describes how some dwarves went to do X and the others stayed and did Y. A cultural difference.

You: Okay then, let's talk about the setting specific dwarves of the Forgotten Realms.

Me: Fine. Then I'm going to the setting book that would be the best and most in depth authority on those dwarves. And look, here are some ADDITIONAL explanations for those bonuses.

You: Now we have a problem.

See, this book does present Gold Dwarves this way. They talk about how Gold Dwarves are optimistic and their lands peaceful, they talk about how the Gold dwarves toil away at making perfect items.

It does not talk about how they rarely if ever see the sun, because they are constantly underground. It does not talk about the war they fought to build their homes. It does not talk about their intense suspicion of outsiders or their desire to flaunt their wealth.

And I'm left wondering, how do I square being optimistic and eager to trade with being suspicious and secretive towards everyone? The books give me no guidance on this, and in fact, it seems to be a bit of a contradiction. Almost as though there are two different versions of Gold Dwarves for Faerun. Mordenkainens' and the Sword Coasts.

There's nothing to square away. They are not in any book "suspicious and secretive towards everyone." They are in one book secretive and suspicious of people who don't flaunt wealth, but many, if not most merchants and nobles do flaunt their wealth, and those are the people that they would be eager to trade with. And one can be secretive and suspicious, and still be optimistic.

And the same thing happens with Shield Dwarves. In Mordenkainen's it says "The openness of the shield dwarves as a people manifests on a personal level as well, with individuals being far more likely to travel among and make friends with other races." However, in the Sword Coast we get that " Living in a near-constant state of war for generations, shield dwarves are a hardy people, slow to trust, with long memories and often an equally long list of grievances against their ancient enemies." And actually calls out that the more conservative of the Shield Dwarves want to cut themselves off from the outside world entirely.

So, they are an open people who are much more likely to befriend other races and make trade agreements with neighboring nations, who are at the same time slow to trust outsiders and hold long grudges against anyone who wronged them.

Sure. They are slow to trust, unlike Mountain Dwarves who are slower to trust. That makes them more open and likely to make friends with outsiders. And they haven't fought everyone, and most of those that they have fought would be orcs and goblins. So again, we don't have a situation where anything said in one book is in opposition to anything said in the other. It's certainly not the clearest way to say it, but that's part and parcel of 5e. The writing has been pretty poor across the board.

So, which book gives us the definitive answer? Or are they both true? Why are they contradicting each other? And why should a player or a new DM need to buy three different books to get a full image of what a dwarf is and why they have the stats they have?

When in doubt, you should probably go with the actual setting book, but so far there's nothing that's truly contradictory, so it's not an issue

 

[Maxperson]

In the 2e AD&D Player's Handbook, it makes no mention of dwarven or gnomish subraces, uses the same racial features for all elven subraces, and halfling retain the standard/mixed/Stout subraces and their differences. The ASIs for all remained the same as in 1e—except gnomes which now have +1 Int & -1 Wis (whereas they had no ASIs in 1e). The Monstrous Compendiums & Monstrous Manual further detail the subraces—here we first get that Mountain Dwarves are isolationists, Grey Elves go from living in meadowlands to living in forests, and gnomes start having shorter beards than dwarves. In later 2nd supplements, the other subraces (including new ones, like Forest Gnomes) are introduced as playable and often have different ASIs from book to book.

The 2e PHB does say that dwarves live hills or mountains, though(Hill Dwarves and Mountain Dwarves). The Complete Book of Dwarves then goes into the subraces in greater depth.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

@Don Durito
As I don't find the specific post, only a quote of it, I do it that way:
A score of less than 10 means that you don't autopass Very Easy (DC 5) checks per the (optional) autosuccess rules in the DMG.
That means, no matter how untrained you are, you can climb a very easy wall, remember a very common piece of lore, remember to greet when entering a room, notice obvious distress in a face...

Yes, that rule conflicts a bit with passive checks, but I like to use them when thinking about a character and a goliath that sometimes just falls down when climbing in the mountains (still unlikely due to poficiency in athletics) should be very rare... but now we go back to rolled stats, and even with +2 to str, an 8 or lower is easily possible. So I am back to: if you buy stats anyway, just put the stats wherever you like.

 

[Scott Christian]

Wisdom is just a hard stat to define. It covers your connection to the world via Druidic and Clerical magic, it covers your ability to perceive and pay attention, your empathy and it also covers your willpower and ability to resist effects.

And then there is the traditional meaning of "wise" which is really just intelligence but not science or math.

I think it covers so much as a catch all, which makes it harder to define. I mean, do you define it via a person who has an easy time with visual acuity? Emotional Acuity?

Maybe you just look for the people who are insightful. Who can say and act in ways that cut through the world to the heart of issues. Which means the highest wisdom we are likely to find is around 14, because it is such a rare thing to find in people.

Sorry if I'm getting a bit heavy for a distraction, was watching heavy stuff before I got on EnWorld

Yeah, it could be all those things. It is interesting to think about.

 

[Lord Twig]

I don't know why it didn't occur to me before, as it is blatantly obvious, and it may have already been discussed in this thread, but the new make-your-own race is just flat out better than the Variant Human, which was already considered one of the strongest options in the game. I mean, instead of getting +1 to two stats, a skill and a feat, they get +2 and +1, darkvision or skill, and a feat. That is just flatly better.

This has several implications, the first of which, to my mind is that having flexibility is valuable. So despite Jeremy's insistence that it doesn't matter where you put the bonus stats, being able to put it anywhere does effect balance.

Second, just as the Variant Human is no longer a viable alternative, the fact that it was supposed to be balanced with the Standard Human that has +1 to all stats is also a problem. Seeing as how the Standard Human is almost universally considered to NOT be equal to the Variant human, and is in fact much weaker, then the Standard Human needs a boost. I am... Wait...

Okay, I am literally interrupting my planned message to add this. Jeremy said that the +2/+1 can not be placed in the same stat, so you can't get a +3. But it gets a feat, just like a Variant Human, and one of the big things about getting that feat is that you could get the so-called "half feat" which gives you a +1 to a stat and then a feature. So the new race could absolutely get a +3. So if you want a wizard, put your 15 from standard array in Int, get the do-it-yourself race and put the +2 in Int, then take a feat that adds +1 to Int and you start with an 18 in your primary stat at first level.

So how is this not a balance issue again?

Anyway, back to my previous message. Hmmm... Oh yeah! Standard Human. Needs a boost. I was going to say add a proficiency to Standard Human, but now I am thinking they should just get a feat. Variant Human would just be replaced with the new option. In this way the Standard Human can potentially get a +2 in a stat, and the Variant Human (now really just Variant Species) gets the powerful potential +3 in a stat.

Or am I missing something?