log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins


log in or register to remove this ad


Alzrius

The EN World kitten
likewise someone who continues to mischaracterize an argument and claim to know someone else's position better than they do. ;)
Likewise to falsely claim that an accurate representation of your argument is a mischaracterization so that you can avoid the rest of the debate. :p
 



But yes, totally; if every Dwarf is a Chaotic Good Wizard then why bother having any structural Fantasy standards at all? We have a certain player who, I believe, actually thinks that CG is the standard cultural Alignment for Dwarves, based on how many CG Dwarf Fighters he always plays, and based on how he never seems to grasp why any of the other Dwarves he encounters don't at all go along with, nor or approve of, his disruptive Chaotic behavior.

I get the feeling that some people just don't want to be playing in the Fantasy genre at all, but some other kind of style completely.... which is totally fine, but then why are you even playing Dungeons & Dragons? If I'm not in the mood for Fantasy I will play Call of Cthulhu or MechWarrior or something else.

I find these two paragraphs, if one is meant to follow the other as a thought, as being so completely outside of my expectations that I truly do not know what to do with them.

You seem to think that having Dwarves being Chaotic Good (I assume instead of Lawful Good) means that something isn't even Fantasy.

So, to begin my disagreement I want to point to the fact that many Fantasy stories do not have Dwarves at all. If the fact that they do not even exist isn't enough to make the story not a fantasy story, then them being "chaotic" wouldn't ruin it either.

Then, I would also like to point to the second ever introduction I had to Dwarves... Gully Dwarves from the DnD setting of Kyrnn. Gully Dwarves are very chaotic. They existed within the annals of DnD itself.

So, if Fantasy is more than Lawful Dwarves, and DnD Fantasy is more than Lawful Dwarves... what possible reasoning is behind the idea that someone who doesn't want Lawful Dwarves not only should play something other than DnD, but that they aren't even interested in a Fantasy Game at all? This claim does not make any sense at all, except for this idea that all Fantasy must match a single mold that is the Fantasy you are comfortable with. And that just is not true.

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

That is what is absurd. Humanity is incredibly diverse. Elves, dwarves, etc. have some tendencies that differentiates them from humans.
Actually had to be more precise.

I've pointed this out every time this topic comes up, but the Racial ASIs did not differentiate any race from the Variant Human. With two +1's and a free feat, which could include a +1 for any Ability Score, all level 1 humans could match any level 1 race in their exact ASI bonuses.

So, their tendencies did not differentiate them from humans, it made them a subset of human tendencies. The real differentiation came in their racial features, not their +2/+1 spread.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
I've pointed this out every time this topic comes up, but the Racial ASIs did not differentiate any race from the Variant Human. With two +1's and a free feat, which could include a +1 for any Ability Score, all level 1 humans could match any level 1 race in their exact ASI bonuses.

So, their tendencies did not differentiate them from humans, it made them a subset of human tendencies. The real differentiation came in their racial features, not their +2/+1 spread.

The "variant" part seems relevant.

Anyway, with those rules, a given individuals could match. But the distribution over all of them would seem quite different assuming the variant humans didn't always spend their bonuses in the same way.

I liked a point made by someone else in a previous thread that the PCs were special and therefore didn't need to match the racial stereotypes. (Insert obligatory section of the community where the PCs aren't special,). But then apparently, unlike in previous editions, the ASIs don't apply to the NPC population as a whole which just makes me confused about the whole thing.
 


The "variant" part seems relevant.

Anyway, with those rules, a given individuals could match. But the distribution over all of them would seem quite different assuming the variant humans didn't always spend their bonuses in the same way.

Fair, but I think it speaks to this "biological imperative" that a lot of people have been pointing out during these discussions. The idea that these races were showing how different they were from humans by having these bonuses humans couldn't match... except they could match them.

Which makes me wonder why people are only now saying that all of these races are now no different than humans... when they were already (in terms of ability scores) not different from humans.

I liked a point made by someone else in a previous thread that the PCs were special and therefore didn't need to match the racial stereotypes. (Insert obligatory section of the community where the PCs aren't special,). But then apparently, unlike in previous editions, the ASIs don't apply to the NPC population as a whole which just makes me confused about the whole thing.

I don't know. I guess I sort of see the point. It was for building an archetype, and not reflecting the entire race. I can get that. But I guess it reflecting the races is such an ingrained trope, no one really noticed when it was gone.
 

I've always thought it would better differentiate non-humans by physical capability to have minimums rather bonuses.

A Goliath Fighter is not really noticeably stronger than a Human Fighter when both max out at 20. And a Goliath Wizard with Strength 12, is not really appreciably different to the Strength 10 wizard. Certainly in the latter case, one wouldn't think the Strength means a lot...but a Goliath Wizard with 16 Strength? Now you have something noticeable and which reinforces the flavour.

But implementing that mechanically, would require something rather different from existing point buy as far as ability score generation mechanics.

Edit: I remain puzzled why WOTC want to introduce flexibility now when all the issues with lack of flexibilty were obvious back in 4th Edition - it's no accident 13th Age gives bonuses for classes. They're now fixing a problem they decided to double down on just a few years ago. (And with the constraints of doing so with the limits of an existing ruleset).
 
Last edited:

Xeviat

Adventurer
Supporter
The biggest mechanical improvement to the game that I see from being able to move ability score bonuses around is that more race/class concepts will feel mechanically optimal. If someone wants to play a tiefling rogue because playing a sneaky boarder line evil devil blooded chaotic neutral assassin in training sounds fun to them, but then they don't get a dex bonus so they figure they'll roll up yet another half-elf just to be safe ...

The social impacts of inclusivity are an entirely different thing and I can't believe we're having to keep explaining it.
 

I iterate what I said in a different thread:
Giving a +2 stat bonus to dexterity is the easiest way of statistically tell you that elves tend to be more dextrous than the average human.
It just plain works.
With 20 as maximum stat, the designers already told us, that no matter how those tendencies are, everyone can reach the same potential.
Probably the designers should have gone further and also made a level 1 maximum score of 16 for everone and give everyone a 16 to play with in the standard array.
That way everone can start with the same potential, but still, species who get +2 can afford to put the 16 on a different stat and still be extremely dextrous.
What I like about that approach is that your stat bonus does not help you with your main stat, but your secondary.

With Tasha's optional rule, we just have: Either start with 16,16,13,12,10, 8 or 16,15,14,12,10,8
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
A strength bonus doesn’t tell me your character is a half orc.
The fact that you took a battle axe... TO THE FACE.. and then pressed on, that’s what tells me you’re a half orc.
At this point this is a pretty major Strawman. We aren't at all saying that it's only the +2 bonus that informs you that you that the character is a half-orc. We're saying that given that half-orcs are stronger as a race than average, the +2 along with all of the other features are what makes up a half-orc. It would be pretty nonsensical for a race that is stronger than average to not have a strength bonus.

They should have just given races their base +2 racial bonus, and then give a floating +1 or +2 to PCs to allow them the versatility people want.
 


This is a False Dichotomy. The differentiation includes both, not one or the other.
At this point this is a pretty major Strawman. We aren't at all saying that it's only the +2 bonus that informs you that you that the character is a half-orc. We're saying that given that half-orcs are stronger as a race than average, the +2 along with all of the other features are what makes up a half-orc. It would be pretty nonsensical for a race that is stronger than average to not have a strength bonus.

They should have just given races their base +2 racial bonus, and then give a floating +1 or +2 to PCs to allow them the versatility people want.
Both of these stands mark my own position. If D&D had an other system to begin with, it would not have mattered to have +2/+1. But with the system 5ed worked with from the beginning. It is the fact that both the Racial ASI and Racial skill/power that make a race stand out as not human.

Having the +1 as a floating ASI would have been better and would have respected both lore and the system's background that have been D&D from the beginning. That book is full of crap...
 

What I don't really like in point buy is that if you got +2 to your lowest stat you only get 2 points, while you get 4 points if it increases your higher stat. So you are punished twice, if your stats don't allign.
Maybe something like a "refund" would also have been nice, like if your species bonus increases a stat to less than 14, you may increase your highest stat by 1.
 

Krachek

Adventurer
phb should be setting neutral, and race is a setting decision.
So I’m ok to let more space to adapt racial bonus and other racial feature.
 


Azzy

Newtype
So is saying Tolkien’s work was derived from sources a decade or two old.

he pulled from myth a millennia or more old. Why apologize for recapitulating myth from one’s culture?

Where in the Eddas are elves described as more agile than humans or dwarves described as more hardy? And how much did Tolkien actually describe them that way? Elves were superior to human in most ways, not just agility.

ancient European folklore and myth is as valid (not more) than any other; you dip into others too much and it’s “appropriation.”

that Gygax pulled from that is...dunno....totally fine?
🙄
 

Warpiglet-7

Adventurer
Where in the Eddas are elves described as more agile than humans or dwarves described as more hardy? And how much did Tolkien actually describe them that way? Elves were superior to human in most ways, not just agility.


🙄
So Tolkien had to be in lock step
On every detail to be considered influenced by or to draw from the Eddas? :rolleyes:
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top