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

[Don Durito]

Kobolds are not strong in D&D because they are small. And Strength in D&D is not relative to body size, it enscapsulates body size.

My god, the weird twisted knots people will tie themselves into on the internet.

 

[Helldritch]

Is that by definition halfheartedly?

Still wholeheartedly. Agreeing with an idea does not prevent someone to improve on it

 

[Helldritch]

Kobolds are not strong in D&D because they are small. And Strength in D&D is not relative to body size, it enscapsulates body size.

My god, the weird twisted knots people will tie themselves into on the internet.

Kobolds in any editions have always been described as weak but intelligent and apt at making traps.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Are they, though? My PHB says that they are size medium and about 6 feet tall and 250 pounds. I've known several humans that size. The strength isn't from just size, since they are the same size as humans, elves, tieflings, etc.

That is the same size as a big human or tiefling, and a very large elf. A large human is bigger than an average dragonborn just like a strong human can be stronger than an average dragonborn.
The ability bonus nudges the bell curve up a bit, it doesn't prevent overlap.

You're getting that ORCS are strong, because that's what orcs are. It's not just big things that are strong, especially because orcs ain't particularly big. They too are medium creatures the same size as elves, etc.

Orcs are Medium, but they are on the large and powerfully-built side of Medium, compared to elves for example.

I see well defined pecs, abs, biceps, triceps, thighs... if I saw a man with those muscles, I certainly wouldn't say he is clearly weak. And this is the main image of Kobolds for this edition.

A man with that musculature would not be weak for their size. Kobolds however are the size of a 3 year old toddler. Weirdness aside, if you saw a 3-year-old with those muscles, you would think them very strong for a toddler, but not strong in absolute terms.

Now, I'll grant, we are told they are weak. But, I can trivially see a setting where the DM decides "Kobolds aren't spindly and weak" and doesn't really have to change much else about them.

Easily. Could be supernatural strength like Redcaps for example, or just much more power-focused chimp-like muscles rather than the endurance-focused human muscles.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Personally I think there are too many races and I certainly would only use a fraction of them in one setting. Nevertheless, the point of having different species to begin with that they're different from each other, and this is one way they can be differentiated, but of course not the only one.

Right, it isn't the only one. In fact, as I have argued these cases again and again, it seems that this one is a poor example of making the races different So why is there so much anger about it? Why is this something people cannot possibly accept?

You don't need to answer that, but this conversation has just hit the same notes over and over and over again.

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

No. It's still a good indicator. Indicator being less than perfect, means that you can have creatures like Dragonborn which are strong due to their draconic heritage and Kobolds which are weak due to size. Large tends to be strong. Small tends to be weak. Specific exceptions are fine and don't break anything.

Except, from the core book we have Dwarves, Orcs, and Dragonborn who are all not strong because they are big.

How many exceptions do we need before they are the rule? Because I bet if I go down that list I mind, I'll find few races taller than a orc/half-orc

It ignores the following...

"Physically weak, they are easy prey for predators. This vulnerability forces them to band together." and "Kobolds make up for their physical ineptitude with a cleverness for trap making and tunneling."

Right, so they are weak because we are told they are weak.

Too bad they are such prolific miners, guess being a miner is no indication of being strong.

It seems arbitrary to you means reasoned, because nothing I've said has had no reason for it to be that way.

Wow. Not even close.

Orcs have a strength bonus, because... "Strength and power are the greatest of orcish virtues..." As as result, natural selection favors the strong and strength would be a trait of the race.

Dragonborn have a str bonus, because they are literally born of dragons and strength is iconically dragonish. Much more so than charisma.

Kobolds have a str penalty because they are physically small and frail, despite the defined strings you want to call muscles.

Elves have a dex bonus, because they are lithe and graceful.

Dwarves are have a con bonus, because they are short, stocky, tough and of the earth.

Humans have no set bonus, because they are versatile and adaptable.

There are reasons for everything.

You are literally restating the premise, and some of this could be easily swapped.

Orcs have a strength bonus because strength is a virtue for Orcs? Well, the human city of Sparta also had strength as a virtue. So they would be just as strong as orcs right? What if Teiflings founded a city and valued strength, would they all get a strength bonus too?

Dragonborn get a strength bonus because they are born of dragons... well, so are Kobolds and so are Draconic Sorcerers. So, Draconic Sorcerers should get a strength bonus right? Because they are born of dragons too?

And then you just restate what I said, that you said was wrong.

Elves are graceful because they are graceful.

Kobolds are weak because they are small and weak.

Dwarves are tough because they are tough. You literally said it. I said "Dwarves are tough because they are tough" and your response was that I was wrong, because dwarves " are short, stocky, tough and of the earth"

So, Seems like I wasn't wrong. You said the exact same thing as I did, you just hold it up as a virtue.

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

To be fair, we have been talking about classes and races this entire time. Heroes played by players in a D&D game. Not common things. I assumed we were still discussing D&D.

We are, what I've said applies to DnD and classes just as easily as it does anything else.

Our archetypal Fighter is a soldier, but the perceptions and thoughts about soldiers are always shifting.

The archetypal Barbarian is from a tribal culture, how we picture and integrate that has shifted drastically since the game was made.

And yes, even Archetypal races have changed.

Dwarves make the best arms and armor right? But in the Tolkien version of Fantasy, dwarves mined for gold and gems, and Elves were the makers of the best armor and weapons. Dwarves were fine of course, but nothing like elven quality.

And we've had a million discussions about the changes to orcs over the years.

Archetypes shift and change with the times and with what we are trying to emulate.

Your image of the kobold does look strong. And who knows, maybe they have that chimpanzee strength, which is much different than human strength. That said, it also means they are a different species, and clearly with different species, such as silverbacks and chimps and humans and orangutans, means they are all clearly different in stats. I say humans get +5 to int, silverbacks get +10 to strength, and bonobos get +5 to cha.

And sure, you can say that. But then we start getting into the attributes being genetic. And it is rather hard to justify mental stats based on genetics. And most attempts to try end up going to bad places, in addition to igoring the fact that if it is genetic, then people might be born in a way that does not match the expectations of their "species"

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

That is the same size as a big human or tiefling, and a very large elf. A large human is bigger than an average dragonborn just like a strong human can be stronger than an average dragonborn.
The ability bonus nudges the bell curve up a bit, it doesn't prevent overlap.

Orcs are Medium, but they are on the large and powerfully-built side of Medium, compared to elves for example.

A man with that musculature would not be weak for their size. Kobolds however are the size of a 3 year old toddler. Weirdness aside, if you saw a 3-year-old with those muscles, you would think them very strong for a toddler, but not strong in absolute terms.

Easily. Could be supernatural strength like Redcaps for example, or just much more power-focused chimp-like muscles rather than the endurance-focused human muscles.

Exactly.

We can assume that a fully grown kobold has the same muscle strength as an infant with under-developed muscles... but we can also assume any dozen of explanations for why they are not that weak. Especially considering that we have a fair number of examples of just that.

If Max says that Dragonborn are strong because they are born of Dragons, and Kobolds are also born of dragons, then we have plenty of justification for them being strong.

 

[Maxperson]

Except, from the core book we have Dwarves, Orcs, and Dragonborn who are all not strong because they are big.

How many exceptions do we need before they are the rule? Because I bet if I go down that list I mind, I'll find few races taller than a orc/half-orc

Stop looking for some "mystical" rule to rule them all. It doesn't exist and shouldn't. Just look at the flavor of the race for the reason.

Right, so they are weak because we are told they are weak.

Too bad they are such prolific miners, guess being a miner is no indication of being strong.

Not when you have a billion of them to mine. A bazillion weak kobolds literally chipping away at a wall can do the work of 10 dwarves.

Orcs have a strength bonus because strength is a virtue for Orcs? Well, the human city of Sparta also had strength as a virtue. So they would be just as strong as orcs right? What if Teiflings founded a city and valued strength, would they all get a strength bonus too?

They also had combat feats and were likely variant humans where the warriors put +1 into strength. Spartan isn't a race, though. Human is the race and human aptitude varies pretty equally.

Dragonborn get a strength bonus because they are born of dragons... well, so are Kobolds and so are Draconic Sorcerers. So, Draconic Sorcerers should get a strength bonus right? Because they are born of dragons too?

Draconic sorcerers are not born of dragons. They have a smidge of dragon blood and use it for arcane power. There's not even enough there to get a stat bonus at anything. Kobolds, which are obsessed with dragons make the claim, but dragons are only one a many reptilian creatures that could have spawned them, if they even had a progenitor. A claim doesn't equate to being born of dragons.

Elves are graceful because they are graceful.

This again is WRONG. They are not graceful because they are graceful. They get a dex bonus because they are graceful. Graceful is not a stat. They don't get grace because they have grace, they get dex because they are graceful as a race.

I'm not going to go point by point again. You're wrong about all the rest of them, too.

 

[Scott Christian]

And sure, you can say that. But then we start getting into the attributes being genetic. And it is rather hard to justify mental stats based on genetics. And most attempts to try end up going to bad places, in addition to igoring the fact that if it is genetic, then people might be born in a way that does not match the expectations of their "species"

I was just trying to to lighten the mood and be silly. Sorry if it sounded serious.

But it odd that some feel a species can't be smarter than another. I mean we wholeheartedly accept Star Treks' version of species, and we all know Vulcans on average are smarter than humans. It is an odd pitfall somehow we have created for D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right, it isn't the only one. In fact, as I have argued these cases again and again, it seems that this one is a poor example of making the races different So why is there so much anger about it? Why is this something people cannot possibly accept?

You don't need to answer that, but this conversation has just hit the same notes over and over and over again.

The amount of rules tied to races is rather minimal to begin with, so getting rid of half of them kinda is a significant change. The conversation keeps going in circles because you for some reason are unable to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Stop looking for some "mystical" rule to rule them all. It doesn't exist and shouldn't. Just look at the flavor of the race for the reason.

Every time I've looked at the flavor of the race... on come the exceptions.

It seems that there is very little that we can actually latch into for these stats, yet losing them would be catastrophic.

Not when you have a billion of them to mine. A bazillion weak kobolds literally chipping away at a wall can do the work of 10 dwarves.

Except that isn't how it works. The miners don't have hundreds of kobolds going after the same wall. So, good job just making stuff up?

They also had combat feats and were likely variant humans where the warriors put +1 into strength. Spartan isn't a race, though. Human is the race and human aptitude varies pretty equally.

Right, so if being part of a martial culture isn't enough.... why did you act like it is? If orcs are strong because they value strength, but humans valuing strength isn't enough to make them as strong as orcs, then valuing strength isn't the key is it?

Draconic sorcerers are not born of dragons. They have a smidge of dragon blood and use it for arcane power. There's not even enough there to get a stat bonus at anything. Kobolds, which are obsessed with dragons make the claim, but dragons are only one a many reptilian creatures that could have spawned them, if they even had a progenitor. A claim doesn't equate to being born of dragons.

Well, to quote you on Bugbears, that is only true if you ignore their history. 3.5 made it very clear they were descended from dragons. People didn't like that, because dragons are powerful and kobolds are mooks, so now they don't state it outright, but they also don't refute it.

And how much Dragon Blood does a Dragonborn have? They were "born of dragons" generations ago, they are likely down to 1/128 or less of their ancestor's blood.

This again is WRONG. They are not graceful because they are graceful. They get a dex bonus because they are graceful. Graceful is not a stat. They don't get grace because they have grace, they get dex because they are graceful as a race.

I'm not going to go point by point again. You're wrong about all the rest of them, too.

What does Dex mean? PHB says "Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance."

What does graceful mean?

"... in the form of elegant movement, poise, or balance."

Dexterity in part measure balance, graceful means in part moving with balance.

So, again, they have high dexterity, because they show attributes related to high dexterity. Just because you say "they get a bonus to dexterity because they are graceful" does not mean you get away from the fact that Dexterity is a measurement of grace, meaning they get a bonus to being able to move gracefully because they can move gracefully.

It is circular logic.

Back to dwarves and being tough, what is Constitution? "Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force."

What does it mean to be tough? "able to endure hardship or pain" Which would include having a high stamina or "vital force"

So, being tough is a result of a high constitution, and having a high constitution is a result of being tough.


I'm not getting this wrong, you are just refusing to acknowledge the obvious here.

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

I was just trying to to lighten the mood and be silly. Sorry if it sounded serious.

But it odd that some feel a species can't be smarter than another. I mean we wholeheartedly accept Star Treks' version of species, and we all know Vulcans on average are smarter than humans. It is an odd pitfall somehow we have created for D&D.

Sorry, I missed that it was supposed to be funny. But...


Um... I don't wholeheartedly except Star Trek's version of species? In fact, many people critique Star Treks' version of species on multiple levels for multiple reasons.

And considering for a moment that once we get to the stage of speech and foresight, and basically human level intelligence like every species/race in DnD exhibits, it becomes incredibly difficult to talk about some being more or less intelligent without getting into dangerous territory and harmful stereotypes that have perpetuated our societies.

Because in trying to explain how we represent a less intelligent culture and people, we invariably end up insulting or diminishing other people.

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

The amount of rules tied to races is rather minimal to begin with, so getting rid of half of them kinda is a significant change. The conversation keeps going in circles because you for some reason are unable to recognise this blindingly obvious fact.

Seems it isn't so obvious then, because I've been trying to figure out why it is a big deal for a while.

It isn't because of culture of the races
It is likely not genetics of the races (and if it is, that is a bit of a problem)
It isn't because of the archetypes
It isn't because of the settings.


Every time I dig into something, there is a different reason. In fact, there are so many different reasons that it seems trivial to use those reasons to justify unique characters using Tasha's rules.

Orcs have a bonus to strength because of their culture?

Well, what if my Gnome Fighter comes from a long and prestigious line of gnome fighters, all constantly training and working and marrying to improve themselves in their quest for [insert plot hook]

Dragonborn have a bonus to strength because of magic dragon blood?

Well, what if my Gnome Fighter came upon a wounded dragon, and aided the beast, and in turn it began teaching him the secrets of magic, and allowed him to drink of its powerful blood to strengthen his body. then it mysteriously vanished.

Some races are just born strong?

Well, what if my Gnome Fighter is a bit of a freak? He was just born stronger than other gnomes, and no one knows why. Maybe it is a throwback to the gnomish relation with dwarves.

I could come up with dozens of reasons to justify the change via Tasha's rules, most of them using the same reasoning that other races are using for their numbers.

What is blindingly obvious to me is that some people just don't like this rule, and they are never going to like this rule, and they are just going to keep insisting it is a bad rule. I'm just curious if I'm ever going to get a reason that goes beyond "because this is not the way things used to be"

 

[Maxperson]

Every time I've looked at the flavor of the race... on come the exceptions.

It seems that there is very little that we can actually latch into for these stats, yet losing them would be catastrophic.



Except that isn't how it works. The miners don't have hundreds of kobolds going after the same wall. So, good job just making stuff up?



Right, so if being part of a martial culture isn't enough.... why did you act like it is? If orcs are strong because they value strength, but humans valuing strength isn't enough to make them as strong as orcs, then valuing strength isn't the key is it?





Well, to quote you on Bugbears, that is only true if you ignore their history. 3.5 made it very clear they were descended from dragons. People didn't like that, because dragons are powerful and kobolds are mooks, so now they don't state it outright, but they also don't refute it.

And how much Dragon Blood does a Dragonborn have? They were "born of dragons" generations ago, they are likely down to 1/128 or less of their ancestor's blood.



What does Dex mean? PHB says "Dexterity measures agility, reflexes, and balance."

What does graceful mean?

"... in the form of elegant movement, poise, or balance."

Dexterity in part measure balance, graceful means in part moving with balance.

So, again, they have high dexterity, because they show attributes related to high dexterity. Just because you say "they get a bonus to dexterity because they are graceful" does not mean you get away from the fact that Dexterity is a measurement of grace, meaning they get a bonus to being able to move gracefully because they can move gracefully.

It is circular logic.

Back to dwarves and being tough, what is Constitution? "Constitution measures health, stamina, and vital force."

What does it mean to be tough? "able to endure hardship or pain" Which would include having a high stamina or "vital force"

So, being tough is a result of a high constitution, and having a high constitution is a result of being tough.


I'm not getting this wrong, you are just refusing to acknowledge the obvious here.

All of this boils down to you not understanding that one is fluff and the other is a mechanic that is tied to the fluff.