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

[Alzrius]

We're talking about that Chainmail list, which is clearly extremely heavily Tolkien influenced. Once had to change things further to distance D&D from Tolkien, it's not a surprise that trolls were made into something that didn't resemble Tolkien's in much more than name.

Here's the entry for trolls as of the 3rd Edition of Chainmail. Notice whose work is explicitly referred to:

 

[Maxperson]

Fair enough. Stats are great ideas, but as we all know, fall short from real life experiences.

That's true. But if a whole group or clan of dwarves are used to the rigors of travel or the hard life, then that group would be considered tough, no?

"Since they were to come in the days of the power of Melkor, Aulë made the dwarves strong to endure. Therefore they are stone-hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hunger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples; and they live long, far beyond the span of Men, yet not forever."― The Silmarillion, "Of Aulë and Yavanna"

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, you may now see high elf barbarians, but does that make the game any better?

For my specific aesthetic concerns, absolutely yes. I sympathize that the game is moving in a direction where some other players' desires are no longer being met, but I think this change is an inevitability.

Ultimately, no game is going to hit all of our aesthetic desires (5e has several things in its design I'm not a real fan of). We have to either adapt the game to fit our desires, or, more productively, adapt our desires to fit our games.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you are worried about being seen as stubborn or heartless... then let go of the belief that dwarves should only ever have +2 to CON and elves +2 to DEX. You either can have your unchanging beliefs about the game mechanics given to the races and demand your players go along with them... or you be a willing participant in your player's desires to use and play what they want. Completely up to you. But you can't have both.

Because to demand both means WotC has to follow your edicts on what they publish and the rest of us get stuck with only what you want. And sorry, but that isn't going to happen.

That is terribly unfair and quite simplified.
First you tell a fellow DM that he is stubborn if he does not include an optional rule. Second you imply that it is inherintly better to use the optional rule, because you think you speak for everyone else. Third, the desire to have meaningful choices that are more than just: my character is only 4ft tall and calls himself dwarf, but actually has all the powers of an elf also needs to be taken seriously.

DnD after all is a game, and to make meaningful decisions, you need something to rely on. In 4e I was very dissatisfied with the AC of enemy rule and also the minion/elite/solo rules. As a player you had no real way to know in advance, how tough an opponent might be. Is that unarmored Goblin a lvl 20 Solo with 24 Str and AC 30? I am exaggerating of course, and the concept could actually be salvaged and done right.
The quintessence of my speach is: you need some hardcoded relation between look and mechanics in a game, or you can't make meaningful decisions from a gamer's point of view.

On a different note: the more meaningful change is the removal of allignment from the description of a whole humanoid species. Replacing stat bonuses with special abilities would also make me happy.
The funny thing is: while the +2 bonus for dwarves is everyone's example, in my opionion con is the only stat, where you can have +2 or even -2 and not hinder someone play any class, as it is never the main stat but only nice to have.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So... if that book changes nothing as you seem to imply, why print it in the first place?

It changes nothing for those who don’t want to use it.

It changes plenty for groups that like what it does.

 

[Oofta]

It changes nothing for those who don’t want to use it.

It changes plenty for groups that like what it does.

It also changes plenty for those that want to play with other groups or AL and potentially the future of the game.

Not that I have that big of an issue with it, just acknowledging that it is potentially a small change that, along with other changes, could make a big ripple.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That is terribly unfair and quite simplified.
First you tell a fellow DM that he is stubborn if he does not include an optional rule. Second you imply that it is inherintly better to use the optional rule, because you think you speak for everyone else. Third, the desire to have meaningful choices that are more than just: my character is only 4ft tall and calls himself dwarf, but actually has all the powers of an elf also needs to be taken seriously.

For the first two points, if that's what you took from what I've said, then either I was not clear or you misunderstood.

To make my point clearer hopefully... I have no issue and do not think a person is in any way stubborn for not using an optional rule. In point of fact, I think everybody SHOULD make their own individual choices on whether or not to incorporate those optional rules. That's the point of having optional rules... so you can choose to use them or not use them.

However, if you don't like an optional rule... you don't get to demand that WotC NOT PUBLISH said rule in one their books. That's the point and has always been the point. Even if you think it ruins the game... the rule can be published, probably will be published, and then you have to make the CHOICE not to use it.

Now that being said... one of the "reasons" some people were giving as to why the optional rules should not be published at all is because if they were... then their players would expect to be able to use them. Understandable... BUT NOT WOTC'S PROBLEM. That is YOUR issue as a DM. If you have rules you don't want to use and you have players that do... then YOU have to choose what is more important... your choices, or your players.

Quite frankly... I don't care either way. If you inferred from my posts that I would side on the players on this choice and that a DM should acquiesce to their demands and allow the rules they don't like to be used... in truth it's the exact opposite! I am entirely for DMs picking and choosing which rules they wish to use for whatever game they are running... whether than be any of the "optional" books like Tasha's and Xanathar's... and even rules within the Player's Handbook. You want to run a game composed entirely of dragonborn? Go for it! And if a player comes to you asking to play a gnome, then you are more than within your right to say "No. Dragonborn only for this game."

But apparently some of the people in this thread have a hard time making that decree. So rather than THEY make the decree of "No, you cannot use the Tasha's rule of placing your ability scores wherever you want"... they want WotC to a NOT PUBLISH that optional rule so that they don't have to.

And I will reiterate again that that is a ridiculous reason to give for why WotC should or shouldn't include a rule in the game. And thank goodness WotC has the good sense to not listen to that kind of reasoning.

And finally... as far as your third point is concerned... you and I will just have to disagree on what is an actual "meaningful choice". Because I don't think keeping a demi-human's ability score bonus to only what is printed in the Player's Handbook is in any way, shape, or form... meaningful. Why? Because rather than a Dwarf from the PHB starting a new game using Point Buy to get an INT of 15 (which they can have)... Tasha's now will allow them to start with a 17 instead. A single, one point difference in modifier.

Like I said... not meaningful in way, shape or form. A point better? Sure. But not meaningful. And I don't believe WotC needs to worry about that... and by all accounts, WotC doesn't.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

My experience about extolling the virtue of change is that one day you find you've somehow been left behind. Sure change happens, but it doesn't have to be for the better, and there no guarantee it'll always align with your values.

Despite stamping and swearing I'll never touch Tasha's, it'll probably get some use at the table. Much of that UA went down well with us.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My experience about extolling the virtue of change is that one day you find you've somehow been left behind. Sure change happens, but it doesn't have to be for the better, and there no guarantee it'll always align with your values.

And when that happens, you play an older edition of the game. Happily. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And is exactly the reason why there are people out there playing AD&D as we speak.

Playing an older edition of D&D because you like the rules better is not wrong. But yet I get the feeling some people seem to think it'd be a bad thing if they did. Which is unfortunate.

 

[Istbor]

Novelty. Rarity. And the rewards that come with it.

the laughter that comes with a halfling barbarian is because it’s a square peg in a round hole. When a halfling is just as good at barbarism as the half orc they will become much more common place.

dwarven wizards are interesting for that reason and half orcs perhaps as well.

so credit? Like become famous in my gaming group for an odd choice? No. For a sense of superiority? Uh, no. I guess I could talk like comic book guy from the simpsons and gloat about one thing or another but that seems really odd.

If things are not a good fit per se they become rarer and more novel, that is all. When every drow can shed sunlight sensitivity we are going to see tons of them as warlocks etc but right now, someone really has to want it for story or other reasons.

You are kidding yourself if you think this optional rule for racial stats will mean an influx of halfling barbarians. They will be just as rare.

I have seen 0 halfling barbarians, and only 2 halfling PCs in all my years. One was a thief and the other a bard. You are worried about this like some terrible event that will never actually come.