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

[Maxperson]

No, it isn't - character stat bonuses are about the PCs, not the race.

No they aren't. The one and only reason that they get those bonuses is because of the entire race's RACIAL bonuses. I mean, it's right there in the name, man.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Here is the point. You do not have to accept Star Trek's vision of races. That's is all good. But because you and some others don't, but the majority does, should they provide sweeping changes to their lore?

I don't know the answer. If you are hurting real life people, then it should probably change. But the way to change it might not be dismiss lore. It might not be to dismiss mechanics. It is probably to create something new.

 

[Maxperson]

Then you could tell me what supports the fluff, right?


I've been trying to do that for the last few pages, and nothing. You defaulted back to "because of the ASI's" or "because"

If there is no reason, then there is no loss by switching the ASIs. And in fact, if the fluff is seperate from the ASI... then could I not have elves be graceful without the dex bonus?

You're looking for some uniform magic bullet "rule" that doesn't exist. That doesn't equate to there being no reason or no loss in making the switch. I've provided reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

You are ignoring that the designers literally said that that is not true.

Sure. I'm ignoring the designers' weak and obviously false justifications for their change. They are trying to retroactively make an untruth, true by virtue of claiming it is so.

Racial bonuses, up to and including 5e, have never just been about the PCs. They are RACIAL bonuses, not PC bonuses.

Here is the PHB quote.

"RACIAL TRAITS
The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race. The following entries appear among the traits of most races."

Ability bonuses are one of those racial traits that are COMMON to MEMBERS of that RACE. I mean, you can believe their lies if you want, but the truth is in print.

 

[Remathilis]

You're failing to see the point racial bonuses. This isn't about PCs. It's about the entire race. Elves as a race are more dexterous than humans. It's irrelevant if some individual heroic dwarf can hit 20.

You do realize that utterly falls apart when you include the PC races that also have Monster Manual entries, right? Aarakroca, Lizardfolk, Kenku, Snirvneblin, Drow, Duergar, Goblins, Orcs, Yuan-ti and others all have different stats, even abilities in the MM than their PC race versions get. Either the PC and MM versions of a race are two separate species, or perhaps the PC stats are for PCs and the MM stats are for DMs...

 

[ph0rk]

No they aren't. The one and only reason that they get those bonuses is because of the entire race's RACIAL bonuses. I mean, it's right there in the name, man.

At this point you have argued both that PC stats don't relate to the average member of a particular race but also that PC stats should have specific bonuses because of membership in a particular race.

 

[Maxperson]

At this point you have argued both that PC stats don't relate to the average member of a particular race but also that PC stats should have specific bonuses because of membership in a particular race.

Those are not mutually exclusive positions. PCs gain those bonuses due to being members of those races, but an individual exception(PC) has no bearing on the racial average. How can you fail to see that?

 

[ph0rk]

Those are not mutually exclusive positions. PCs gain those bonuses due to being members of those races, but an individual exception(PC) has no bearing on the racial average. How can you fail to see that?

They are. If PC stats have nothing to do with being a member of a particular race, then there is no need to give characters a stat bump based on that race.

If PC stats truly are bounded by player races, then those stat bumps would also increase stat maximums. They do not.

 

[Maxperson]

You do realize that utterly falls apart when you include the PC races that also have Monster Manual entries, right? Aarakroca, Lizardfolk, Kenku, Snirvneblin, Drow, Duergar, Goblins, Orcs, Yuan-ti and others all have different stats, even abilities in the MM than their PC race versions get. Either the PC and MM versions of a race are two separate species, or perhaps the PC stats are for PCs and the MM stats are for DMs...

First, I'm not looking at the MM for racial bonuses. Second, balance plays a part in things, too. WotC has many rules that don't make complete sense until you factor in balance. That the PCs get a lower bonus than the MM version due to balance does not negate what I am saying. You don't get to say, "But the MM version is even more dexterous than the PC version, so therefore PCs shouldn't get a dex bonus, and the dex bonus they do currently get didn't come from their race as a whole."

Let's look at Aarakocra. The MM race has a very high dex as a race. The PCs get +2 dex. Their next highest stat is wisdom. They get +1 wisdom as PCs. The racial bonuses for PCs match the racial advantages of their race. I'm sure if I examined the other "exceptions" you mention, I will find them to be similar.

 

[Maxperson]

They are. If PC stats have nothing to do with being a member of a particular race, then there is no need to give characters a stat bump based on that race.

If PC stats truly are bounded by player races, then those stat bumps would also increase stat maximums. They do not.

The bolded part is false, as I just pointed out, though. Just because it's not exact 1 to 1, does not mean race has nothing to do with it.

The 5e PHB outright tells you that it is because of the race as a whole. I quoted the section.

 

[Scott Christian]

Hey @Maxperson and @Scott Christian remember when you said that no one was saying that this was about lore, and that no one was claiming that without racial ASIs everything would be a human in a mask?

Yawn.
I never said anything of the sort. I have stated a dozen times my exact feelings about this. Here is what I said:

Again, 5e was created. It is a success. My thoughts about the line fall in between the two: rules change to make things easier. They often change to give a certain group an advantage. And in this case, it will be the min/maxers that get an advantage. As has mostly been the case through D&D's evolution. And each time that happens, a little bit of lore gets lost. DM's that spent hundreds of hours, with hundreds of pages of notepads, and hundreds of play hours, creating a world, now feel that what they did might be ruined.

That is the point many have made. Let's make it easier for this elf to have this. But, and here is what the other side keeps saying: You can have your elf learn oratory skills. They can be intelligent wise. You can do it right from the start. You can point buy them a 15 intelligence wisdom. That is way above the average. You can do this in the rules as they are written in the PHB. No need to change anything.

But wait... what do I hear? The war horn of someone...
who...
wants...
a...
16 to start with.

See. It goes both ways, which is why I am not taking a side. I am simply answering your question. You can have exactly what you ask for, a high score in any attribute. But, the average PC's chosen race is set up with strengths. One that says: when a PC chooses this race, the race is +X better than the other races.

Now if you do not like that, that is okay. You can just have the DM create a house rule that negates this and change the point buy to where players can reach 16 or 18 or 20.

But for some reason that doesn't sit as well. Not with me. Not with you (I am guessing). Not with a lot of people.

It is not how they got their stats, it is that the stats create a pattern. They do this by creating positive and negative outcomes of race/class combinations. The positive obviously attracts the majority of players. Now if you (which is what this entire debate is about) remove the negative then you remove the pattern. Hence, increase the likelihood of that race/class combination being played, ie. no longer unique.

That is what the people you are debating have been saying. You literally spell it out in your counter, yet somehow fail see it.

And for the record, it is not gimping the character. It's choosing to have that character focus on something other than their class's primary calling. Often, you find ways to do that by incorporating those non-patterned characters. Again, remove the negative, remove the pattern. C'est la vie uniqueness.

This ability to live with the negatives in order to explore potential positives is the summation.

They feel that by pushing things that help min/maxers, it alters lore/tropes/and actually hinders a style of play that is not min/maxing

If you remove something from being okay at a class to everything being equal at a class, then the mechanical choices ones make are moot. This leads to all the D&D players not being able to make their "my wizard is better than yours." That takes some of the fun out of the game. But it also does this...
For people like Oofta (I believe) it removes ingrained patterns that develops from players making characters. And it is about patterns. They develop based on stereotypes. And to play against the stereotype is fun and interesting. That is how a dark elf was born into myth. You see very few high elf barbarians. Why? Because they are not optimized for the class. Say what you want about D&D's base, but a huge majority of them choose to make the stronger character as opposed to the one that focuses on other things. That is what making everything equal does.
Sure, you may now see high elf barbarians, but does that make the game any better?

I have been very clear and specific. The feelings of others are that it does not matter if you start discussing where ASI's come from. None of it matters. What matters is one group wants a 16 to start with, and the other group doesn't. That is it.

The group that wants the 16, claims it will expand race/class combos, promote more diversity, and get rid of negative stereotypes.

The group that wants the 15, claims it is not tested, dissolves lore, makes races less unique, and makes race/class combinations less unique.

And in the end, that is what it is all about. Go ahead and discuss racial traits as being biological or cultural. Go ahead and discuss mountain dwarves and gold dwarves. Go ahead and discuss everything else. But the essence is this:

You are correct. That is what the other side has consistently said - these "races" have diverse genetics. All of them can go train, it is just at level one, one race might go in and workout and be stronger (at level 1) than another - by 1 point! Yet, somehow that is not good enough. Some want them to be exactly the same.

But if they want to create lore, by making odd race/class combinations. Yet the only way to increase players using those combinations is by giving someone a 16 in the beginning, then that is what the essence of the argument is still about.

It is the same for the other side. They think the PHB does a good job at reinforcing race/class combinations, and thus, keeping intact the lore as it is at present. It does this by making some race/class combinations less effective at lower levels at their primary "schtick." (They may be better at other things, but never really combat.)

All I am saying is the essence of this debate for the side that wants the change is the 16. I could say the essence of the debate on the other side is the 15. The rest is speculation on the effects that this 16 will have. We know the effects of the 15 - it keeps many players from exploring race/class combinations that aren't optimal.

I do mention lore quite a bit. I list it because that is one of the speculations, is that the lore will be changed adversely. But, in the end, it is all about players and WotC wanting their 16. Might be different reasons, but the motive is not what we're seeking. We are discussing how the rule change will effect the game.