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

[Aaron L]

I'm still on the fence on this. If we no longer have tropes then are you ever really playing against type? If every PC dwarf is a wizard (and they're one of the best options for it now) then my dwarven wizard suddenly doesn't stand out.

It's fine for those that want it, but I'll discuss with my group on the impact of the new rules before I use it for my home game.

I have a Mountain Dwarf Wizard (War Mage) PC that I get to play occasionally, who wears half-plate armor and wields a battleaxe. Everyone who sees him assumes him to be a Fighter. I love it.

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 won't get into how much I detest the impact that Harry Potter and other similar gawdawful "Young Adult Literature" has had on modern Fantasy... this ties heavily into my extreme distaste for shoehorning Devilgirls and Dragonmen among the default D&D races in the PHB.)

I am reminded of that old joke from The Order of the Stick: the entire race of Drow is comprised of nothing but stoic, good-hearted rebels who long to be free of their race's oppressive evil culture...

But at the same time I fully understand that Adventurers are, almost by definition, the oddballs and freaks who don't fit in at home, so instead go out exploring the world to find adventure and/or a place to belong, so having PCs who are certified weirdos by the standards of their race and culture is perfectly fitting (and is a significant element of the long tradition of fictional Fantasy heroes.)

But also also at the same time; if we have no standards, then... well, we have no standards.

 

[Azzy]

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?

You do realize that there's a lot more to fantasy than just Tolkein and those that seek to emulate him? The standard depiction of elves and dwarves are not sacrosanct, nor are elves and dwarves even necessary to fantasy.

 

[Charlaquin]

That is highly outdated talk, buddy.

A lot of people use awful renditions of Russian accents for dwarves these days, too.

Don’t forget awful renditions of nonspecific Scandinavian accents.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Also, some DMs prefer to keep the game as close to RAW as possible regardless of the campaign type, and that is perfectly valid.

That's me - mostly for clarity, since I play in multiple games. Keeping track of all the houserules would be a pain.

But then again, I probably would have allowed pretty much any of the proposed options if a player had asked for them already, since I know how to adjust for things.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's me - mostly for clarity, since I play in multiple games. Keeping track of all the houserules would be a pain.

But then again, I probably would have allowed pretty much any of the proposed options if a player had asked for them already, since I know how to adjust for things.

Yeah. My fellow DM who is like that does allow homebrew sometimes, and is usually fine with UA stuff, but we have like two or three houserules, tops. None of us want to halfway rebuild 5e into a new game. We just want to play.

 

[Maxperson]

My takeaway from the video was that the +1's and +2's for specific attributes have nothing to do with balance. Dexterous Elves are not dexterous for balance reasons, but to hew closely to the tropes and stereotypes of elves in fantasy literature and gaming for the past few decades. So it breaks nothing to allow players to move those bonuses around.

Yeah. The +1, +2 is more for equity than equality.

 

[Maxperson]

Jeremy also hints at something that I think gets lost a lot, and that being how we perceive racial ability score adjustments. I.e., we see "Elves get +2 Dex" means that all elves, or elves in general, are more dexterous than anyone else. Instead, it actually means, "YOUR character who is an elf is more dexterous." When you change your perspective from "most races like X" to "my character gets this as an individual", it's much more easy to accept how a dwarf might be a wizard, or a halfling is extra strong. Because it's about your PC who is an exception, not a modifier to the average halfling, or elf, or dwarf.

He said that's what it really means, but that's not what it has meant prior to 5e or in most other systems. Dwarves are tough and strong, elves are smart and dexterous, halflings nimble, etc. That's why they got bonuses. What Crawford is doing is inventing a justification for the change, not explaining why the bonuses were there in the first place.

 

[Maxperson]

If +2 Con is the only thing a dwarf is to you, why are you playing a dwarf?

It's not the only thing a dwarf is, but is part of what a dwarf is.

 

[Shardstone]

I agree that this justification is def. not how the mainstream gaming community has EVER seen these bonuses; however, I still think this new lineage system is fine, though half-assed if what was implied in the video is true.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree that this justification is def. not how the mainstream gaming community has EVER seen these bonuses; however, I still think this new lineage system is fine, though half-assed if what was implied in the video is true.

Yep. My group has already decided we won't touch it, but it works just fine for those that want to.