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

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
I don't recall saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me.

I don't even remember saying a +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to me mechanically, which I almost consider a fair- if mistaken- interpretation of my words.

But to answer the question you asked, because having that +2 Con is important enough to and for the character in question that it trumps any and all other criteria for choosing a race.
That is the thing. If you object, you are questioned about why it’s so important.

meanwhile a whole book is there saying that you can change it around because it does not fit someone’s vision and by extension is important.

the +2 is meaningful for a character or it’s not. We could also ask the elf who places the +2 in charisma if that is the only way he defines his character which is also uncharitable.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Argyle King

Legend
I'm not sure that I understand the point of races and classes at this point.

I typically prefer classless games anyway, but I was of the impression that D&D had a reason for designing the game with those pieces included.
 

That sounds rather underwhelming. I was hoping for something a little more extensive.
Anything more extensive would need to be closer to Savage Species than a chapter in a multi-function book. And while I would support such a thing myself, I don't see the company going that route.

I do like that it's underpowered - I don't want people making new races for optimization. Playing dwarves for optimization I like (because I don't see enough dwarves as it is.)
 

grimslade

Krampus ate my d20s
I'm not sure that I understand the point of races and classes at this point.

I typically prefer classless games anyway, but I was of the impression that D&D had a reason for designing the game with those pieces included.
Nostalgia. D&DNext kept a lot of sacred cows as a way to bridge all editions and end the Hateful Edition Wars. I hope this will open up the design space for new systems instead of rejiggering bonuses to change a Wild Elf into a Snow Elf.
 

I'm not sure that I understand the point of races and classes at this point.

I typically prefer classless games anyway, but I was of the impression that D&D had a reason for designing the game with those pieces included.
DnD does it (mostly) to make it easy to introduce the concepts to new players. Well, that's what it looks like to me, at least.

This book is for people bored with the existing options. One way to expand it is to give people who want it carte blanche to mess around with the existing templates.
 




doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The "need" is for situations where dm's are sticklers for only doing stuff allowed in the books - which is usually when you're not playing with the same people every week. (Or especially: when you aren't playing with the same dm every session.) AL, open-table games, West Marches, etc have a need to keep rules clear and consistent, so just houseruling to deal with special cases isn't a sustainable option. This book would add a bunch of pre-defined customization points to work from.
Also, some DMs prefer to keep the game as close to RAW as possible regardless of the campaign type, and that is perfectly valid.
 

I really thought about it, and probably it won't break anything. I would not allow trading every tool/weapon proficiency for dwarves and elves, because I personally think it is too much. Instead I might allow the trade of certain subsets. 4 Weapon proficiencies (some of them martial) of the elf pushes them way above what I woukd expect from a starting character, especially because those are more or less just ribbon features for 90% of the characters.
 

Remove ads

Top