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

[Alzrius]

It's okay to admit that Tolkien had significant influence. It doesn't reflect poorly on either D&D or Gygax.

Ah, blatant trolling. The last refuge of someone who knows they've lost the argument.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, blatant trolling. The last refuge of someone who knows they've lost the argument.

likewise someone who continues to mischaracterize an argument and claim to know someone else's position better than they do.

 

[Alzrius]

likewise someone who continues to mischaracterize an argument and claim to know someone else's position better than they do.

Likewise to falsely claim that an accurate representation of your argument is a mischaracterization so that you can avoid the rest of the debate.

 

[Alzrius]

I've had a change of heart. @Maxperson I apologize if you felt that I misrepresented your position, it wasn't my intention to do so. Likewise, this devolution is doing no one any favors, so without getting into any further discussion of who's right or wrong or whatnot, I propose we both drop it.

 

[Cadence]

I think General - A shorter Appendix N has a nice discussion of the influential authors. Some of those participating are pretty meticulous about their sourcing and arguments. It might be a more relevant thread for that kind of thing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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 find these two paragraphs, if one is meant to follow the other as a thought, as being so completely outside of my expectations that I truly do not know what to do with them.

You seem to think that having Dwarves being Chaotic Good (I assume instead of Lawful Good) means that something isn't even Fantasy.

So, to begin my disagreement I want to point to the fact that many Fantasy stories do not have Dwarves at all. If the fact that they do not even exist isn't enough to make the story not a fantasy story, then them being "chaotic" wouldn't ruin it either.

Then, I would also like to point to the second ever introduction I had to Dwarves... Gully Dwarves from the DnD setting of Kyrnn. Gully Dwarves are very chaotic. They existed within the annals of DnD itself.

So, if Fantasy is more than Lawful Dwarves, and DnD Fantasy is more than Lawful Dwarves... what possible reasoning is behind the idea that someone who doesn't want Lawful Dwarves not only should play something other than DnD, but that they aren't even interested in a Fantasy Game at all? This claim does not make any sense at all, except for this idea that all Fantasy must match a single mold that is the Fantasy you are comfortable with. And that just is not true.

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

That is what is absurd. Humanity is incredibly diverse. Elves, dwarves, etc. have some tendencies that differentiates them from humans.
Actually had to be more precise.

I've pointed this out every time this topic comes up, but the Racial ASIs did not differentiate any race from the Variant Human. With two +1's and a free feat, which could include a +1 for any Ability Score, all level 1 humans could match any level 1 race in their exact ASI bonuses.

So, their tendencies did not differentiate them from humans, it made them a subset of human tendencies. The real differentiation came in their racial features, not their +2/+1 spread.

 

[Cadence]

I've pointed this out every time this topic comes up, but the Racial ASIs did not differentiate any race from the Variant Human. With two +1's and a free feat, which could include a +1 for any Ability Score, all level 1 humans could match any level 1 race in their exact ASI bonuses.

So, their tendencies did not differentiate them from humans, it made them a subset of human tendencies. The real differentiation came in their racial features, not their +2/+1 spread.

The "variant" part seems relevant.

Anyway, with those rules, a given individuals could match. But the distribution over all of them would seem quite different assuming the variant humans didn't always spend their bonuses in the same way.

I liked a point made by someone else in a previous thread that the PCs were special and therefore didn't need to match the racial stereotypes. (Insert obligatory section of the community where the PCs aren't special,). But then apparently, unlike in previous editions, the ASIs don't apply to the NPC population as a whole which just makes me confused about the whole thing.

 

[cmad1977]

A strength bonus doesn’t tell me your character is a half orc.
The fact that you took a battle axe... TO THE FACE.. and then pressed on, that’s what tells me you’re a half orc.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The "variant" part seems relevant.

Anyway, with those rules, a given individuals could match. But the distribution over all of them would seem quite different assuming the variant humans didn't always spend their bonuses in the same way.

Fair, but I think it speaks to this "biological imperative" that a lot of people have been pointing out during these discussions. The idea that these races were showing how different they were from humans by having these bonuses humans couldn't match... except they could match them.

Which makes me wonder why people are only now saying that all of these races are now no different than humans... when they were already (in terms of ability scores) not different from humans.

I liked a point made by someone else in a previous thread that the PCs were special and therefore didn't need to match the racial stereotypes. (Insert obligatory section of the community where the PCs aren't special,). But then apparently, unlike in previous editions, the ASIs don't apply to the NPC population as a whole which just makes me confused about the whole thing.

I don't know. I guess I sort of see the point. It was for building an archetype, and not reflecting the entire race. I can get that. But I guess it reflecting the races is such an ingrained trope, no one really noticed when it was gone.

 

[Don Durito]

I've always thought it would better differentiate non-humans by physical capability to have minimums rather bonuses.

A Goliath Fighter is not really noticeably stronger than a Human Fighter when both max out at 20. And a Goliath Wizard with Strength 12, is not really appreciably different to the Strength 10 wizard. Certainly in the latter case, one wouldn't think the Strength means a lot...but a Goliath Wizard with 16 Strength? Now you have something noticeable and which reinforces the flavour.

But implementing that mechanically, would require something rather different from existing point buy as far as ability score generation mechanics.

Edit: I remain puzzled why WOTC want to introduce flexibility now when all the issues with lack of flexibilty were obvious back in 4th Edition - it's no accident 13th Age gives bonuses for classes. They're now fixing a problem they decided to double down on just a few years ago. (And with the constraints of doing so with the limits of an existing ruleset).