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

[Scott Christian]

And all the writing I ever do for my characters is now completely meaningless, because all people will see is that gasp of horror I want my classes to have a 16 in their primary stat.

I should be burned at the stake for such heresy. I mean, it isn't like literally every single class advises to do exactly that. Nope, I am a monster who never writes three page backstories tying in the lore of the world, family connections, offering plenty of potential plot hooks for my DMs. None of that is true, I just want more big numbers.

And this is why I shouldn't have clarified what else these rules do beyond what putting my highest stat in the right place would do. Because now, I will be seen as a liar for all the story stuff I honestly do love. After all, three days of advocating for the story potential was just called nonsense, and this, this is my true, dark intention. Min-Maxing.

To be fair Chaos, I have been on both sides of your argument. I think your table (the way you describe it) is a lot of fun. It must be tough. And that is part of its appeal. Losing 5% on a roll, and having it affect outcomes, is a high level skill for a DM (and players). Kudos to you. And you stated a long time ago the min/maxing did not affect the roleplay. Again, kudos. That is a difficult balance, and I applauded it and still applaud it.
But it is a min/max character creation. I believe there are more of those than any other type of player. I believe you are in the majority. I think the reason some have debated you on this, is:
1. They do not believe 5% can make that much of a difference
2. They just want you to state you are a min/max character creation player
3. They feel that by pushing things that help min/maxers, it alters lore/tropes/and actually hinders a style of play that is not min/maxing
4. All of the above

There are two sides, and they are both correct. There is no logic or winner here. It is just a perspective on a hobby many care deeply about. That is why this thread is already 18 pages long.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Optional rules, whether we believe it or not, are used by many. I have played on a lot of different tables in a lot of different states; cons, home groups, etc. Almost always, optional rules are used the day after they come out - this is especially true for anything character creation related. It is neither a good nor bad thing. But, to dismiss it and say people are ignorant of the new race or class or spell is being a little bit disrespectful of the people who play D&D. They all know how to look things up on their phone. And once one person in a group uses the new combo, class, etc. - they all learn it.
Maybe I just believe information in our community disseminates faster. I could be wrong. I am open to that possibility.

Hi ardoughter. Please note, I never used the word "I" in my sentences describing those changes. In fact, I went out of my way to say most people (if you must know, including me) likes almost all of those changes. They didn't make the game better. They didn't make it worse. They made it different.
But those changes also changed the lore. And that is something that ruffles feathers in some people. And you know what? They have as much of a claim to be ruffled as someone has a claim to think they are great.
What should be clear is I did not say those were my preferences. (And sorry about the water analogy. Sometimes they are spot on, and sometimes they just obfuscate what I was trying to say.)

You are correct, we should not expect WotC to stop publishing those materials. I am happy you got through an AP. They can be fun. And for the record, I am on the 5e bus. Ask anyone who has seen me defend AP's, and they'll probably roll their eyes and throw a die at me. But it should not stop anyone from looking critically at a ruleset and debating how it might alter the game, in the present and future.

Thanks for the response, I originally responded because I was confused by your previous post. i do agree that there has been a strong trend toward casual playstyles over the years. I see that as partly inevitable, there are so many competing time sinking hobbies. The same trend is observable in wargames. To the benefit of wargames as far as I am concerned. I think I can recreate old school aspect of the game easily enough, If I want and the old rulesets are still there.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

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.

I don't think so. This attitude to happily jettisoning archetypes and tropes in favor of untrammeled progressiveness helped lead to the 'we know best' disaster of 4E.

No, much better to raise a voice of protest now at what is being lost.

And we'd better put to rest this idea that fans of the character of previous editions can't recognize mechanical failings of said editions. 5E is the first edition I've played that I haven't had to make house rules.

I think you also missed the point where you, Defcon 1, may find yourself being a minority voice in the future at some point. I'd hope no one tells you to go off and play some older version of your beloved game.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You kinda proved my point without saying it.
With Tasha, no more going against the current or the optimal choices. Everything is optimal. Always.

I mean... Isn't that the literal purpose of this optional rule? It's for campaigns in which the group does not want to have to play against type in order to play the character they want.

This optional rule will not match every style of play.

In the Dungeon Master chapter on creating a campaign, one of the first steps is to "Set the Stage" by communicating "any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races."

Any rule option, from new Player Races to Feats to Point Buy to Firearms, is optional. Each group gets to decide what fits their play style.

Now I know you are worried that players will force you to use these options. Is this a pattern you have seen with optional rules in the past? And if your players are so excited about these options, maybe they don't want to play against type?

 

[BookTenTiger]

*Win and lose are in parenthesis because although I see this as an issue, it's not the end of the world and it's fate accompli in any case. I just want to preempt claims that I'm saying it's the end of D&D as we know it.

Do you feel the same fear of D&D "ending" every time a source book with new options comes out?

"D&D as we know it" is always ending, and becoming something new.

I feel like you see this change as more threatening to your play style than other changes before. You have mentioned it's going to prevent you from "playing against type."

In the long run, how likely do you really think it is that this optional rule will negatively impact your experience of D&D?

 

[BookTenTiger]

I don't think so. This attitude to happily jettisoning archetypes and tropes in favor of untrammeled progressiveness helped lead to the 'we know best' disaster of 4E.

As far as I recall, the increase of character identities is what made 4e popular (remember all those tieflings???). It's the mechanical side of things that dragged 4e down.

That's why 5e kept the open style of character creation (all bonuses, no penalties) and ditched some of the mechanics.

Also those "archetypes and tropes" are already setting-specific. The Dwarves of Forgotten Realms have different tropes than the Dwarves of other settings.

If I can ask, in your mind, what is the worst case scenario for this optional ruleset?

 

[TwoSix]

I think you also missed the point where you, Defcon 1, may find yourself being a minority voice in the future at some point. I'd hope no one tells you to go off and play some older version of your beloved game.

If they did, I wouldn't be offended by it. I'm happy to play any edition of the game (except 1st, which seems clunky and I never played, so I have no nostalgia for it).

Just because something isn't included in a particular version of D&D doesn't mean it's lost. It isn't like the game is "evolving" into some ideal version, each version of the game has its own strengths and weaknesses and exists as a snapshot in time of the concerns of those particular designers and player base. Old tropes might be resurrected if there's a desire for them in the player base, and other tropes may drift away as the player base shifts through both attrition and growth.

 

[jasper]

1.Everything in D&D is optional.

.....

2.If you feel that strongly that dwarves should only get +2 to CON and not any other scores... then tell your players you aren't using Tasha's options to change the racial bonuses. That's it. That's all there is to it. And if they don't like it... either tell them too bad, or get over yourself and your picadillos about what is "true" D&D and let your players have their fun. Your choice.

1. Very nice we agree.
2. ... get over yourself and your picadillos about what is "true" D&D and let your players have their fun..... way to back hand anyone who does not agree with you.
I had people shove 2E books in my face and proclaim. "THIS IS AN OFFICAL PRODUCT. WHY CAN'T I USE IT. YOU ARE NOT AS SMART AS THE WRITERS". DMs. It your game. If you want ban things, do so. Now if you ban too much, you will be playing with yourself only.

 

[Oofta]

Do you feel the same fear of D&D "ending" every time a source book with new options comes out?

"D&D as we know it" is always ending, and becoming something new.

I feel like you see this change as more threatening to your play style than other changes before. You have mentioned it's going to prevent you from "playing against type."

In the long run, how likely do you really think it is that this optional rule will negatively impact your experience of D&D?

Huh? I explicitly stated that D&D as we know it is not ending.

Having said that it's a change that IMHO has more negative than positive. I like having restrictions that make me think of the trade-offs such as getting a wizard in medium armor but only starting with a 14 int along with playing against type. Like I said, people that want a 16 in their primary ability now get to have their cake and eat it too because they just stole the cake from people that like to play counter to expectations.

If I ever get back to playing AL in person I may even take advantage of this because I have a cool half-orc monk mini, and having a cool mini is the basis for quite a few of my PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

If I ever get back to playing AL in person I may even take advantage of this because I have a cool half-orc monk mini, and having a cool mini is the basis for quite a few of my PCs.

Yeah. I can't tell you how many times my players bought minis that they thought looked cool and then built a character around them.