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

[Helldritch]

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?

Nope. You're not. You got everything right. Somewhere along the line, this fact simply go lost.
This is also why, in an other thread, I said that a part of this book must have been made in haste to cope for the "racists" accusations WotC wants to avoid. More playtesting should have been made. And these floating ASI and choicy picky powers is just not balanced. It looks like it, but as soon as someone checks a bit closer, you see potential abuses. And easy ones to find at that. But WotC went forward with this. For the better or for the worse, we'll get that book.

 

[Lord Twig]

Nope. You're not. You got everything right. Somewhere along the line, this fact simply go lost.
This is also why, in an other thread, I said that a part of this book must have been made in haste to cope for the "racists" accusations WotC wants to avoid. More playtesting should have been made. And these floating ASI and choicy picky powers is just not balanced. It looks like it, but as soon as someone checks a bit closer, you see potential abuses. And easy ones to find at that. But WotC went forward with this. For the better or for the worse, we'll get that book.

We can only speculate as to why they did what they did. Although if you listen to the first part of the video, in among the other reasons, racial sensitivity does appear to be one of the reasons. And to be clear, that is absolutely not a bad thing. It can be argued that that kind of thing can go too far or not far enough, but honestly I was trying to stick to just the rules and implications for game balance.

As I said in my original post, in general I like all of the traditional tropes and bonuses (and even negatives, which I was disappointed to see go), but I don't have anything against adding more options for people to play what they want to play. The options should be balanced though, and it should allow for everyone to play the type of game they want (within the general framework of D&D of course).

 

[Oofta]

We can only speculate as to why they did what they did. Although if you listen to the first part of the video, in among the other reasons, racial sensitivity does appear to be one of the reasons. And to be clear, that is absolutely not a bad thing. It can be argued that that kind of thing can go too far or not far enough, but honestly I was trying to stick to just the rules and implications for game balance.

As I said in my original post, in general I like all of the traditional tropes and bonuses (and even negatives, which I was disappointed to see go), but I don't have anything against adding more options for people to play what they want to play. The options should be balanced though, and it should allow for everyone to play the type of game they want (within the general framework of D&D of course).

Sometimes, though, it feels like the more accommodations are made to eliminate perceived racism the more it tries to make non-human species just a human with a rubber mask. It feels like instead of accentuating that these are completely separate species (as is made clear in the rules) they're doubling down on tying fantasy species to real world ethnicities. I just don't see how that ends well unless all species are above average.

In other words, it's not a bias to say that dogs and cats are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. I think easy to grasp archetypes and concepts are one of the reasons for the success of D&D over the decades. The more we chip away at that, the more we make elves, dwarves and gnomes just humans in a different form, the less those archetypes stand for.

No, it's not the end of the world. Yes, racism is bad. Saying a different nonexistent species is not exactly like humans in all capabilities (including flexibility) is not racist. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Helldritch]

We can only speculate as to why they did what they did. Although if you listen to the first part of the video, in among the other reasons, racial sensitivity does appear to be one of the reasons. And to be clear, that is absolutely not a bad thing. It can be argued that that kind of thing can go too far or not far enough, but honestly I was trying to stick to just the rules and implications for game balance.

As I said in my original post, in general I like all of the traditional tropes and bonuses (and even negatives, which I was disappointed to see go), but I don't have anything against adding more options for people to play what they want to play. The options should be balanced though, and it should allow for everyone to play the type of game they want (within the general framework of D&D of course).

Like you I don't think it is a bad thing either (racial sensitivity) but it is the rushed aspect that I truly find irksome. The way they're doing it does not ring right. There must've been a way to be better and yet, respect the history of how D&D has worked since the "almost" the beginning. Rushing things is never a good idea.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Sometimes, though, it feels like the more accommodations are made to eliminate perceived racism the more it tries to make non-human species just a human with a rubber mask. It feels like instead of accentuating that these are completely separate species (as is made clear in the rules) they're doubling down on tying fantasy species to real world ethnicities. I just don't see how that ends well unless all species are above average.

In other words, it's not a bias to say that dogs and cats are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. I think easy to grasp archetypes and concepts are one of the reasons for the success of D&D over the decades. The more we chip away at that, the more we make elves, dwarves and gnomes just humans in a different form, the less those archetypes stand for.

No, it's not the end of the world. Yes, racism is bad. Saying a different nonexistent species is not exactly like humans in all capabilities (including flexibility) is not racist. In my opinion, of course.

“Saying a different nonexistent species is not exactly like humans in all capabilities (including flexibility) is not racist.”

Kind of unreal that you would even have to say that.

 

[Helldritch]

Sometimes, though, it feels like the more accommodations are made to eliminate perceived racism the more it tries to make non-human species just a human with a rubber mask. It feels like instead of accentuating that these are completely separate species (as is made clear in the rules) they're doubling down on tying fantasy species to real world ethnicities. I just don't see how that ends well unless all species are above average.

In other words, it's not a bias to say that dogs and cats are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. I think easy to grasp archetypes and concepts are one of the reasons for the success of D&D over the decades. The more we chip away at that, the more we make elves, dwarves and gnomes just humans in a different form, the less those archetypes stand for.

No, it's not the end of the world. Yes, racism is bad. Saying a different nonexistent species is not exactly like humans in all capabilities (including flexibility) is not racist. In my opinion, of course.

“Saying a different nonexistent species is not exactly like humans in all capabilities (including flexibility) is not racist.”

Kind of unreal that you would even have to say that.

And this is where I draw the line, just like you. I see no racism in D&D that should have an impact on the real world. Yet, many do. And since these rules must have passed the 70% mark, we must assumed that we are wrong about our view.

But these rules were rushed and already in multiple threads we have highlighted these shortcomings. These rules as seen as so necessary by a lot that we have no choice but to see it as a lesser evil. I really wish that WotC puts a big warning label that these rules are optionals and do not replace those in the PHB unless the table agrees. I/we see a lot of balance issues in these and more than one game will suffer from these balance.

A simple warning about how races in D&D should not be compared to real world people in future printing would have been more than enough in my mind. Playtesting these rules should have been way longer. Much more longer...

 

[Argyle King]

Maybe the different way of handling races is an early test of 6E concepts.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Maybe the different way of handling races is an early test of 6E concepts.

It may well be and just as well.

I skipped 2e and 4e. I can skip 6e. I played 1e up until 2000. I think this is a great game and have loved 5e but because it was new and old coming together.

this is the best hobby. A few books and you can be set for decades. I am pretty ok the way I am situated. Haven’t really scratched the surface of 5e yet...

 

[Argyle King]

It may well be and just as well.

I skipped 2e and 4e. I can skip 6e. I played 1e up until 2000. I think this is a great game and have loved 5e but because it was new and old coming together.

this is the best hobby. A few books and you can be set for decades. I am pretty ok the way I am situated. Haven’t really scratched the surface of 5e yet...

The reason my mind even went to that is because similar things have occurred during my own anecdotal experience with D&D.

Toward the end of 3rd Edition, things such as the Book of 9 Swords and a re-designed monster stat block appeared. Both were somewhat radical departures from how the game generally worked (or was presented) up to that point. In hindsight, it's somewhat obvious that those were things which 4th Edition grew out of it.

Later, 4th Edition went through similar changes. Monster Math changes were necessary, so those didn't stick out much. However, drastic overhauls of how classes and basic components of the game worked were a bit more noticeable. I think some of those overhauls can be seen in pieces of 5th Edition design.

All games and designs evolve, but -anecdotally- it appears that radical departures start to become more common around similar parts of an edition's life.

 

[Oofta]

The reason my mind even went to that is because similar things have occurred during my own anecdotal experience with D&D.

Toward the end of 3rd Edition, things such as the Book of 9 Swords and a re-designed monster stat block appeared. Both were somewhat radical departures from how the game generally worked (or was presented) up to that point. In hindsight, it's somewhat obvious that those were things which 4th Edition grew out of it.

Later, 4th Edition went through similar changes. Monster Math changes were necessary, so those didn't stick out much. However, drastic overhauls of how classes and basic components of the game worked were a bit more noticeable. I think some of those overhauls can be seen in pieces of 5th Edition design.

All games and designs evolve, but -anecdotally- it appears that radical departures start to become more common around similar parts of an edition's life.

I'm not sure whether I'd classify these changes as quite as radical as The Book of 9 Swords. There are other political reasons for Hasbro to push this narrative. I wouldn't be surprised if the dev team was pressured to make concessions from upper level management to make these changes considering some of the accusations of racism that have arisen over the past year or so.

But time will tell. I'm still having fun telling stories with 5E, I don't see that ending any time soon. If there is ever a 6E I'll make a decision at that point whether I use it or not, just like I'll probably wait until my next campaign to decide if I use the optional rules from Tashas.