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

[Weiley31]

This argument going on strong!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I actually agree that wisdom makes sense for orcs. That one accepts the concept of racial ASIs on principle doesn't mean that one has to agree with the specific implementation as it stands now.

 

[Scott Christian]

This ignores a few things.

First, and perhaps the most troubling, is that this takes the position that some people are just born more intelligent than others. And, you'll notice, that those who are born stronger and tougher (more suited for physical work) are rarely born smarter. In fact, one of the more common combos is Intelligence and Charisma, which makes for a good leader.

So, some people are born to be leaders and others are born to do manual labor, and if you are starting to hear a sound, that might be a dog whistle for some really destructive and dangerous rhetoric that a lot of us do not want in our games.

If that is the fear, that someone starting with a 16 or 17 instead of 15 makes them a lot smarter, then indeed you are correct. I guess I just choose to be an optimist about race, believing 5% doesn't mean a whole lot. Someone tests with a 105 IQ or 100 IQ, I can't spot the difference.

But I think my biggest problem with your suggestion here, is that you want me to assume the other side is right. And I have two issues with that.

First, if I responded by saying "Yes you are right about your assertion, but..." then their response will natural be, "That doesn't matter, because [repeat assertion]." Oofta has actually done this already. He has said that the things this rule adds to the game are overshadowed by the things it loses. So, your advice would be for me to say "Yes, this rule is a net loss for the game." and at that point, I'm just conceding my entire position.

And secondly, I am freeing the other side from the burden of proof. I don't know why I see this time and time again, but it makes no sense. If you want to convince me of something, don't tell me to go convince myself that you are right. By approaching this from the position that my opposition must be correct, then I lose all ability to counter-claim, all ability to provide opposing evidence, all ability to say that my points alter the scales to lean in my favor. And meanwhile, all the other side has to do is make a claim. They need to put in zero effort to defend that claim, zero effort to support that claim, they just get to say something and I'll tell them they are right.

Well, I'm sorry. I don't do that. I do not just assume that the person I'm arguing with is 100% correct in their assertions. At that point, there is no need to argue at all.

I would reread what you wrote. The debate, as I have said twenty times, is that by making races homogenous via attributes, you lose racial patterns, which in turn, loses lore and could possibly damper some people's RP'ing experience. You would not concede anything by saying: "Actually it will help lore. Here is how..."

You wink as though that is an obvious answer. But, this misses two points.

The first? You get more than one character trait as your ASI. Orcs got Strength and Con, but in the same book Tritons got Con, Charisma and Strength. So, I have no need to limit myself to a single answer anyways.

Secondly, Wisdom does make sense. A lot of sense. Wisdom is the stat associated with Clerical and Druidic magic. As a race that heavily favors the worship of gods, wisdom makes sense. In Eberron Orcs are the source of Druidic magic in the setting, tying into the imagery of orc shamans which is very common for the tribal people tropes that orcs play into.

Also, what is one of the big things about their relationship with the gods? Signs, omens and portents. Orcs are constantly observing the natural world, looking for signs. They are... perceptive, seeking insight into the meaning of these signs. I'm sure you are seeing what I did there. Any other skills they should be good at? Yes. Survival is a by word for the orcs, who being a tribal people would by necessity be good at tracking, hunting, gathering food, finding water. Their life style fully supports this idea. Anything else, actually, again, yeah. Animal Handling may seem strange, but Volo's did give us two examples. Red Fangs of Shargaas raise and ride Giant Bats and one of only 4 beasts the book added were Aurochs. Sacred oxen that the Orcs who revere Bahgtru raise and ride into battle.

And, to support this even further. The "Eberron" Orc is the one everyone is saying is canon now (mostly because it is the version of the Orc without the Int penalty) is also a version that gets the ability "Primal Intuition" which allows them proficiency in two of the following, Animal Handling, Insight, Intimidation, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Survival. And, if you break that list down you see 1 charisma skill, 1 Intelligence skill and 5 wisdom skills, showing a clear predominance towards wisdom.

So, sure, many people want to pigeon hole orcs into "Orc Strong" and leave it there. But, since I'm not required to be limited to one choice, and there is a lot stacked up over here in wisdom.... Why not pick wisdom?

That is what I call playing devil's advocate! If I line up 100 people who know what an orc is, and ask them that question, most, possibly with a percentage greater than 90%, will say strength. You decide to view it through a different lens, that's cool. But the correct answer is strength. The question reads "BEST DESCRIBES." You see, combine this with what is in the PHB:
"They (orcs) tend to be short-tempered and sometimes sullen, more inclined to action than contemplation and to fighting than arguing." (pg. 41) That is the opposite of wise. It is the need to be physical. Orcs are also large; six to seven feet and 180 to 250 pounds.
But whatever Chaos, choose to interpret it whatever way you want. That's what you do. But if the question reads BEST DESCRIBES and you are insistent that you are correct, even when you know the majority of players would say strength, then there is no reason to point anything out to you. You feel strongly you're way is better, no matter what it might do to other players. You can call it truth, I call it a lack of empathy.

 

[Scott Christian]

Strength, Constitution and Wisdom ought to be the three primary attributes one should be raising to make an Orc. A good, functional Orc should not be lacking in any of those three. I don't really think it much matters which of the three is the highest, it'll still seem Orcy enough if all of them are 12 or higher.

The question asks for a single characteristic. The best characteristic. I would be absolutely fine with a setting that had nature orcs that rode horses, were insightful, and practiced herbal medicine with +2 wisdom. That would be cool. Give them a +1 dex for their archery/hunting skill to boot. But the PHB orcs are not that way. But I do like the idea.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If that is the fear, that someone starting with a 16 or 17 instead of 15 makes them a lot smarter, then indeed you are correct. I guess I just choose to be an optimist about race, believing 5% doesn't mean a whole lot. Someone tests with a 105 IQ or 100 IQ, I can't spot the difference.

This part isn't about the amount, it is about the logic. People X are only born 5% smarter than People Y who are born 5% more suited for labor is going to just have those numbers taken out.

There is no way to make that logic more appealing to a wide audience, and all the calls of "but species!" isn't going to change that.

I would reread what you wrote. The debate, as I have said twenty times, is that by making races homogenous via attributes, you lose racial patterns, which in turn, loses lore and could possibly damper some people's RP'ing experience. You would not concede anything by saying: "Actually it will help lore. Here is how..."

I've done that. About 20 times as well I've talked about the benefits to lore. I've tried talking about the benfits to the lore, with you, involving Star Gnome Druids and Orc Clerics.

And I've just been told I'm wrong for most of this discussion. Or that, okay, they can grant that one thing, but we still lose far more than we gain. What are we losing? Archetypes, everything will become homogonized... and no matter how many times I try and show differently, it doesn't matter.

That is what I call playing devil's advocate! If I line up 100 people who know what an orc is, and ask them that question, most, possibly with a percentage greater than 90%, will say strength. You decide to view it through a different lens, that's cool. But the correct answer is strength. The question reads "BEST DESCRIBES." You see, combine this with what is in the PHB:

"They (orcs) tend to be short-tempered and sometimes sullen, more inclined to action than contemplation and to fighting than arguing." (pg. 41)

That is the opposite of wise. It is the need to be physical. Orcs are also large; six to seven feet and 180 to 250 pounds.

But whatever Chaos, choose to interpret it whatever way you want. That's what you do. But if the question reads BEST DESCRIBES and you are insistent that you are correct, even when you know the majority of players would say strength, then there is no reason to point anything out to you. You feel strongly you're way is better, no matter what it might do to other players. You can call it truth, I call it a lack of empathy.

So you didn't want my opinion, you wanted me to say you were right. I laid out multiple paths to support my interpretation, worked in their lore, their culture, their structures and you dismiss it all as a lack of empathy.

I don't see a way forward for this conversation really. You have the "correct answer" and I have "a different interpretation viewed through a different lens" but it is also not the correct answer. Because your answer must be correct.

Are they a tribal people who observe the world closely, have a deeply religious culture and habits that would encourage tracking and animal husbandry? Yes.

But they are big and angry so it doesn't matter, strength is the right answer.

I'm reminded a bit of the line following the one you quoted, because it came up a lot when discussing the orcs and the problems with their representation.


"The most accomplished half-orcs are those with enough self-control to get by in a civilized land."

Interesting choice of words isn't it. The big, scary and strong native and the most accomplished ones are those with enough self-control to tame their inner nature and live like civilized people. Maybe 90% of people who know what an Orc is are okay with that. Maybe they want to keep the big strong brutes with burning passion and simple lives who need to control themselves to be civilized.

Maybe it isn't.

 

[Remathilis]

The real answer is because rules need to be balanced. But that won't suffice for you. I mean technically, there is lore for elves to be dexterous, wise, charismatic, and intelligent. But the PHB needs to balance the races out, so they focus on the ones that best fit the archetype. It's like the old multiple choice questions:
1. Choose the character trait that best defines an orc.
A) Strength
B) Dexterity
C) Wisdom
D) Charisma

Let's play a quick game.

I'm developing a vampire PC race. (Ignore any issue about powers or morality for a moment, focus on ability scores). I need to have a +2/+1 ability score mod that best defines a vampire. What gets a +2 and what gets a +1?

Strength? Vampires are notoriously strong and often rely on grapples to feed.
Dexterity? They are considered graceful and agile, having superior stealth and speed
Constitution? They are hard to kill and resistant to many physical attacks.
Intelligence? Many vampires are smart, learned and cultured creatures. (Mindless spawn notwithstanding)
Wisdom: vampires are cunning, perceptive and intuitive.
Charisma? Hello, raw sex appeal and a voice that charms mere mortals?

The MM is no guide here; they are superior to mortals in everything. But for pc rules, what ability score (s) define a vampire.

And when your done, convince everyone else that your way is right.

 

[Oofta]

Odd how nobody seems to have an issue with the fact that high elves and gnomes get a bonus to intelligence which kind of implies that all humans are kind of stupid*.

Almost like gnomes are not humans but are a fantasy species (races are specifically called out as separate species in the rules BTW) that does not and cannot exist that happen to look roughly like a human.

*If you agree with the logic that an average of +1 or +2 is a significant difference. I don't.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Let's play a quick game.

I'm developing a vampire PC race. (Ignore any issue about powers or morality for a moment, focus on ability scores). I need to have a +2/+1 ability score mod that best defines a vampire. What gets a +2 and what gets a +1?

Strength? Vampires are notoriously strong and often rely on grapples to feed.
Dexterity? They are considered graceful and agile, having superior stealth and speed
Constitution? They are hard to kill and resistant to many physical attacks.
Intelligence? Many vampires are smart, learned and cultured creatures. (Mindless spawn notwithstanding)
Wisdom: vampires are cunning, perceptive and intuitive.
Charisma? Hello, raw sex appeal and a voice that charms mere mortals?

The MM is no guide here; they are superior to mortals in everything. But for pc rules, what ability score (s) define a vampire.

And when your done, convince everyone else that your way is right.

You have managed to find out that vampires are not a suitable PC race because they're far too powerful. Grats.

 

[Remathilis]

You have managed to find out that vampires are not a suitable PC race because they're far too powerful. Grats.

Nice dodge. I could say the same of elves based on Tolkien's lore. Now, you want to take the challenge or are you content to say it's hard to boil down mythical beings to exactly 1-2 stats?

I picked vampire because it has a long mythical tradition but a relatively short PC race one. There are examples in 4e and 5e if you want to go research them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nice dodge. I could say the same of elves based on Tolkien's lore. Now, you want to take the challenge or are you content to say it's hard to boil down mythical beings to exactly 1-2 stats?

I picked vampire because it has a long mythical tradition but a relatively short PC race one. There are examples in 4e and 5e if you want to go research them.

Tolkien's elves would indeed not be a balanced PC race either, especially the Noldor. They're clearly just flat out better than humans, no question about it.

But I agree with your point, that deciding what stats are essential to represent certain being might be tricky, though using examples of beings that simply are good at everything really doesn't work.

I said earlier that I don't like subraces and would get rid of them, and have increased flexibility instead. So for example all elves would get +2 to dex, and then could choose to +1 to int, wis or cha, all orcs would get +2 to strength, and +1 to con or wis and so forth. (You can quibble about the exact stats chosen, but you get the idea.)