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

[Scott Christian]

Could be because Star Trek is less interactive. The fans of Star Trek are just watching, fans of DnD are participating.

Could be. Seems like a solid point.

You were talking about racial traits. Those things fall under that category.

The authors meant for the racial scores to be tied to races, yes, they outright state that "Every race increases one or more of a character's ability scores."

They also outright state that your language is tied to your race "By virtue of your race, your character can speak, read, and write certain languages."

Both of these quotes are from pg 17 of the PHB. So, writing a language is "by virtue of your race" but you aren't talking about language, because logically that can't be innate to a race... but a race increasing an ability score must be innate?

I was discussing innate racial traits. Also discussing the ability for one to apply common sense to the authors' use of language in their statements. I mean, they try to reword it so it doesn't sound repetitious, but it's very clear. By virtue of literally means because of... the phrases "inborn ability," "natural ability," "traits deriving from ancestry," all mean you are born with it. One implies it could just be a product of learning, the other means it is innate. Am I reading it wrong? I don't think so.

And I have shown you multiple sentences where it is possible to see that they indicated it was the case.

Timeline. I agree they have said it. Timeline. It may have been after the fact. That, I believe, is what someone else was saying.

But let us take a step back. Let us assume for a moment you are right. Then they changed it to be for PCs only, and that is fine, but it might effect play a little.

Now, let us assume for a moment I am right. They did not change it, but people misunderstood and now they know it was meant for PCs only, and that is fine, but it might effect play a little.

What's the difference? One is that the writers were misunderstood, because it didn't really matter at the time how it was defined. And the other is that they changed their mind... which doesn't alter anything. So, what value is there is proving that the Racial ASI's used to apply to the entire race? What does that gain us?

Perspective. That is what it gains us. To me, it is important to have in order to understand the context of something.

Sorry, I was talking about the thread in general, not your discussion with me in specific.

And, I've never denied that they were creating archetypes. They have never denied that. But, now we are changing the mechanics so that playing against type doesn't come with a penalty. And I know some people seem to think that a decision without a penalty is a useless and empty thing (not you in specific, just people in general), but I disagree that I need to be penalized for one choice and rewarded for a second in a game.

Because, let us be clear for a second, you are heavily rewarded for playing into certain archetypes. A Lightfoot Halfling rogue has better mobility in crowded areas, better ability to hide, better dexterity for all of their abilities, and better dice manipulation. All of which are great for a rogue.

So getting different bonuses like hitting harder, extra skills, darkvision, and the ability to not die once a day shouldn't need to be penalized, when I'm already also losing out on other abilities any rogue would love to have.

No, they are eliminating against type all together. The way the PHB defines against type is specifically not having the advantage of a race/class combination that is synergistic. By eliminating against type, according to some, leads to a loss of archetypes and lore.

Sure, but that has always been the case.

Players might come with the Piety system from Theros. Or the Stronghold and Follower's Rules from Colville. Or the Backgrounds from Ravnica.

Heck, some DMs see Dragonborn and Tielfings in this light, or feats like GWM or SS.

If this has been something DMs have had to navigate since the beginning of the game... then this is nothing new. And if you want to argue that this is bad, because if there is so much DMs need to navigate then why add more? Well, because new content is always going to be added to the game, until the game is retired.

And every time a new option is added, at least one person declares that "this will never see use at my table" and that DM is always going to have to contend with players who want to use that option, and seek to find a compromise.

IT is just the nature of the beast.

Which is why I suggested it is better to start with a clean slate rather than place players/DM's in that situation. Because, in the end, you can add all sorts of things that are not controversial. You can add spells, just playtest them first. You can add locales and regions. You can add monsters. You can add lore and adventures. You can add magic items. You can add splat for online gaming. You can add new equipment and weapons and armor. You can even add races to match a locale. You can do all these things. But if you choose to change a rule that has been in place for five years, and one that has been a staple for the game for several editions in a row, then maybe, just maybe, don't add it or start from scratch.

 

[Scott Christian]

I do believe that ASIs are an important part of picking a race. The value of being able to move them around is valuable because the best ASIs for a class can now be combined with the best innate abilities.

I mean, it is one of the things the PHB expressly and overtly stresses to players during character creation. It is one of the few things that are listed in a chart at the beginning of the book - before they even talk about races. Here is what strength means, and by the way, here are the races that are strong and get a bonus (page 12). It is actually the very first table encountered when reading the book.

 

[Scott Christian]

One of us did & I'm not sure how many pages back it goes before I gave up tracking it back but the argument that the tasha's shuffling of racial stuff will ruin the game because "everyone" will be doing the most optimal thing & killing racial diversity is the weak argument. Doesn't really matter who was making it at this point.

I think Oofta stated no one here said "ruin." And I believe his argument was more nuanced than that.

 

[Oofta]

One of us did & I'm not sure how many pages back it goes before I gave up tracking it back but the argument that the tasha's shuffling of racial stuff will ruin the game because "everyone" will be doing the most optimal thing & killing racial diversity is the weak argument. Doesn't really matter who was making it at this point.

It matters if it was only unfounded accusations from people who support the change against those that dislike it. I can't just say "Oofta is the most amazing poster" and then have a follow-up post that says "Someone said Oofta is the most amazing poster" as proof of anything. Well, other than stating an obvious fact of course.

I do think a lot of people will take advantage of the rule. I wouldn't be surprised to see tables in AL games where the table or more are playing half-elves or mountain dwarves in the future. I think this makes races even more bland and generic.

I mean, either having a primary stat of 16 matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, there's no reason for the change. If it does then a significant percentage of people will feel compelled to use the race that gives them the highest ability scores.

 

[tetrasodium]

It matters if it was only unfounded accusations from people who support the change against those that dislike it. I can't just say "Oofta is the most amazing poster" and then have a follow-up post that says "Someone said Oofta is the most amazing poster" as proof of anything. Well, other than stating an obvious fact of course.

I do think a lot of people will take advantage of the rule. I wouldn't be surprised to see tables in AL games where the table or more are playing half-elves or mountain dwarves in the future. I think this makes races even more bland and generic.

I mean, either having a primary stat of 16 matters or it doesn't. If it doesn't matter, there's no reason for the change. If it does then a significant percentage of people will feel compelled to use the race that gives them the highest ability scores.

will it "make a difference"?... sure but not in problematic ways. The most notable difference is that all of those racial weapon/armor/etc proficiencies that are not generally useful to characters who benefit from the stat associated with that race due to duplication from the classes that take that race. The difference is that you will see mountain dwarf wizards using that armor & casting spells just as effectively as some other wizard.

Is a +2 worth more than a tool proficiency?... of course! Races having bad & maybe useless racial stuff a different problem but from the sounds of it there is a table of what kinds of things you can trade for what so you have a more equivalent exchange than some are worried about

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What hasn't been talked about a lot is it the completely custom race? It was actually a thing, right? +2, +1 and a feat, or something like that?

 

[Chaosmancer]

I was discussing innate racial traits. Also discussing the ability for one to apply common sense to the authors' use of language in their statements. I mean, they try to reword it so it doesn't sound repetitious, but it's very clear. By virtue of literally means because of... the phrases "inborn ability," "natural ability," "traits deriving from ancestry," all mean you are born with it. One implies it could just be a product of learning, the other means it is innate. Am I reading it wrong? I don't think so.

How any times are we going to go around this circle. I'm getting dizzy.

You were discussing "innate" racial traits. Let us once more go back to the PHB. What do we see for Dwarves.

Dwarf Traits​

Your dwarf character has an assortment of inborn abilities, part and parcel of dwarven nature.

Ability Score Increase​

Your Constitution score increases by 2.

Age​

Dwarves mature at the same rate as humans, but they’re considered young until they reach the age of 50. On average, they live about 350 years.

Alignment​

Most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order.

Size​

Dwarves stand between 4 and 5 feet tall and average about 150 pounds. Your size is Medium.

Speed​

Your base walking speed is 25 feet. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor.

Darkvision​

Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can’t discern color in darkness, only shades of gray.

Dwarven Resilience​

You have advantage on saving throws against poison, and you have resistance against poison damage (explained in the “Combat” section).

Dwarven Combat Training​

You have proficiency with the battleaxe, handaxe, light hammer, and warhammer.

Tool Proficiency​

You gain proficiency with the artisan’s tools of your choice: smith’s tools, brewer’s supplies, or mason’s tools.

Stonecunning​

Whenever you make an Intelligence (History) check related to the origin of stonework, you are considered proficient in the History skill and add double your proficiency bonus to the check, instead of your normal proficiency bonus.

Languages​

You can speak, read, and write Common and Dwarvish. Dwarvish is full of hard consonants and guttural sounds, and those characteristics spill over into whatever other language a dwarf might speak.

And the part where it says they get traits "part and parcel with Dwarven nature" which would read innate, we get (in order) the ability score increase, Age, Alignment, Size, Speed, Darkvision, Resilience, Combat Training, Tool Proficiency, Stone Cunning and Language.

At no point do the rules call some of these traits "innate" and other not. They do not say you are born with some of them and not others. They do not say they are "derived from ancestry" and not others.

If you want to argue that by saying that the traits are "part and parcel with Dwarven nature" that the designers were explicitly telling us that the +2 Con was something dwarves are born with, then you at the same time must say that dwarves are born speaking dwarvish, knowing how to work a belllows in a forge, and how to wield a battleaxe. Because the designers did not in fact seperate these traits, some into innate racial traits and some into non-innate racial traits.

Which, leads us to some of these traits being innate, others not, and none of it labeled. Some are obvious like age and size, or tool proficiencies. But, I put forth that some could go either way, Racial ASI's being one of them. Because I can think of learned behaviors that could cause those bonuses.

Perspective. That is what it gains us. To me, it is important to have in order to understand the context of something.

Why do we need to understand the context of this rule? Is there context that would make it less of an official rule if it were discovered?

No, they are eliminating against type all together. The way the PHB defines against type is specifically not having the advantage of a race/class combination that is synergistic. By eliminating against type, according to some, leads to a loss of archetypes and lore.

They gave examples of playing against type, they did not define that not having a +2 to your key stat was the only way to play against type. And, since there are multiple ways to play against type, then this rule cannot eliminate it.

Also, what about the race/class combos that this opens up that are archetypical and defined by the lore, but mechanically less than optimal? Orcs are the "Godsworn" with religion massively impacting every aspect of their lives. This rule allows for Orc Clerics to more easily exist.

I saw recently in Mordenkainen's that Gnomes have a particular fascination for star-gazing, and Forest gnomes have a love of small creautres. This could open up some very thematic Star Druid Gnome characters, who fit perfectly in the lore but are mechanically not "optimized".

These are just as "archetypical" as the combos that now exist, but are being relegated into your "against type" category. Why?

Which is why I suggested it is better to start with a clean slate rather than place players/DM's in that situation. Because, in the end, you can add all sorts of things that are not controversial. You can add spells, just playtest them first. You can add locales and regions. You can add monsters. You can add lore and adventures. You can add magic items. You can add splat for online gaming. You can add new equipment and weapons and armor. You can even add races to match a locale. You can do all these things. But if you choose to change a rule that has been in place for five years, and one that has been a staple for the game for several editions in a row, then maybe, just maybe, don't add it or start from scratch.

They aren't changing a rule. They are adding an optional rule. That is the difference.

In fact, Tasha's features a lot of options, and something in particular stands out to me. You remember the Class Variant UA? The one that offered different abilities that players could pick instead of their normal ones?

It has been repeatedly referred to as the most popular UA ever. But, by your logic, they are changing the rules in the PHB and should have just made 6e instead.

I disagree. I think that these optional rules are sorely needed, but I don't think they require an entirely new edition of the game to implement. And, since 6e isn't being released but Tasha's is, I believe the game designer's agree with me.

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

I do think a lot of people will take advantage of the rule. I wouldn't be surprised to see tables in AL games where the table or more are playing half-elves or mountain dwarves in the future.

Still haven't heard a single reason why "more half-elves and Mountain dwarves" is a problem

 

[Oofta]

Still haven't heard a single reason why "more half-elves and Mountain dwarves" is a problem

Do you really want an honest answer? I mean, I've given it multiple times ... but sure.

The reasons I personally have an issue with this change even though, no it's not the end of the world, it doesn't destroy, break, spindle or mutilate D&D*.

Mountain dwarves had a niche. They were were known as durable fighters. They had an archetype, something that fit the general cultural expectation of dwarves. This was reinforced by the fluff text but also because a preponderance of players used them for fighters. The small "disadvantage" of having "only" a 15 in anything other than strength or con was effective in reinforcing that archetype.

Having an easy to grasp identity, having clear archetypes is, I think, good for the game. It's part of what makes D&D what it is. When people new to the game join, most PC mountain dwarves will fit a preconceived notion of what a dwarf is.

Now? I wouldn't be surprised to see more mountain dwarf arcane casters than fighters because of the ability to wear armor (despite one very specific arcane caster build being able to get a 15).

In addition the penalty was so minor that mountain dwarf wizard worked just fine in actual play. That let people play against expectations and stereotypes, something I enjoy now and then.

I think the game loses more than it gains. You could always build a PC that started with a 16 in their primary ability score. Now? We lose common archetypes, race become even more just a choice of what gives you the highest ability score. Race becomes ever more meaningless. I think races work better if there's something to make them unique and special.

It's not bad that we'll see more mountain dwarves and half-elves at the table. IMHO it's a loss to the game that being a mountain dwarf or half elf has been stripped of some of the last things that gave them a unique identity.

Last but not least it seems odd that they made a change this fundamental without surveys and UA feedback. I'd have less of a problem with it if they had added something, anything, to counterbalance this and reinforce things that make the different races distinct.

*Is that enough qualifications for you?

 

[Don Durito]

How is it not a problem if one race is just flat out better across the board then others? It's breaking a fundamental design goal which is parity.

I mean isn't this the exact same problem that we're trying to solve by lifting these restrictions? If it's an issue that my Half-Orc can't be as a good a Sorcerer as a Half-Elf due to his race (because he doesn't get a Charisma bonus), then the issue remains if, after adding the flexibility, he still can't be (And now may not even be as good at the things he was originally supposed to be good at like being a Fighter).

I thought we were trying to solve the whole issues of "well I really want to be a Half-Orc Bard, but they're really not the best for that and my rational brain is telling me the most logical thing is to be a Half-Elf."

 

[Azzy]

How is it not a problem if one race is just flat out better across the board then others? It's breaking a fundamental design goal which is parity.

I mean isn't this the exact same problem that we're trying to solve by lifting these restrictions? If it's an issue that my Half-Orc can't be as a good a Sorcerer as a Half-Elf due to his race (because he doesn't get a Charisma bonus), then the issue remains if, after adding the flexibility, he still can't be (And now may not even be as good at the things he was originally supposed to begood at like being a Fighter).

I thought we were trying to solve the whole issues of "well I really want to be a Half-Orc Bard, but they're really not the best for that and my rational brain is telling me the most logical thing is to be a Half-Elf."

This is a great argument for removing racial ASIs all together.