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

[The Mirrorball Man]

The thing is, race/lineage isn't going away. Elves, dwarves and the like still have unique abilities that aren't ability mods or free proficiencies. Stonecunning, fey ancestry, breath weapons, infernal legacy all still exist and are parts of a characters build

What if I wanted to play a Halfling with breath weapon, though? If player characters are exceptional, there’s really no reason to ban that possibility. And if that’s possible, well, playing a Paladin with wildshape or a Barbarian with spells should be allowed as well.

 

[GreenTengu]

The thing is, race/lineage isn't going away. Elves, dwarves and the like still have unique abilities that aren't ability mods or free proficiencies. Stonecunning, fey ancestry, breath weapons, infernal legacy all still exist and are parts of a characters build, just it's a less important part, especially since the choice point no longer "I could take x race and get abilities that synergize with my build, or y race which doesn't but fits my character" to "I want to play x race, how do I modify it to make it less redundant with my class?"

That said, I imagine that they could, in a hypothetical 6e, trim back the number of options down in terms of classes and races and opt for more customizable options. But I don't see them removing it utterly.

Honestly, Stonecunning is of questionable usefulness in its current form and doing away with it in favor of simply a proficiency in the History skill might be better anyway.

And I have never really gotten that whole "Elves don't sleep" thing. I never really see it highlighted much aside from with power gamers and otherwise most D&D games hardly even really incorporate it in any real way. You generally still have to get an inn room and effectively sleep for 8 hours regardless. If we were to get rid of it, I don't think it would be missed. Same with the free use of longswords and bows. It wasn't a thing in 4th, it didn't matter in 3rd as if you were playing a character who had an attack bonus high enough to hit with the thing then you already got martial weapons proficiency and in 5th edition it is a Str weapon and Elves are a Dex race-- so, again, its not really worth using. Now a long bow would obviously be useful, but... yeah, I just don't see a longbow being a necessary accessory when I imagine an Elven Wizard or Warlock-- really only Elven Rangers or Fighters.

The Dragonborn Breath Attack ought to be balanced against having a typical damaging cantrip if you can use it all the time or as a damaging 1st level spell once per long rest. Either way, it is an effect that could be duplicated with a dip into the Sorcerer class.

The only things that one might want to keep that I think that maybe one wants to keep as something classes can't just easily replicate would be maybe if Dwarfs still have advantage/resistance to Poison and Elves to Enchantments and Tieflings to Fire... But then I could easily imagine a feat being able to provide a similar resistance to a single non-physical damage type or a single school of spells.

Generally I feel as though any ability that is tied to the race should be something that one can gain through the right combination of 1st level classes and feat choices. At least the mechanical part of it should be obtainable even if the lore behind how those mechanics work for you is a little different.

 

[Helldritch]

You know what Tasha's remind me of? For old timers like me it is a new UA.
The UA arcana introduced the 9,8,7,6,5,4,3 d6 rolls for stats (which was not like by old DM but loved by those who wanted to do as they pleased).
It introduced zounds of new spells and magical items.
More classes like the cavalier, barb, thief accrobats, expanded Druids and so on.
New races and more rules.

And guess what? It was not playtested enough. Just the rolling method is responsible for a lot of the Paladin stupid nerf to paladins because the class was OP as it was now a cavalier subclass.

A lot of the changes of the UA were simply not well thougth and litteraly game breaking. Not at a first glance, but when the min/maxer started to appear (min/max was not really a thing at first). It became obvious that something was amiss. I was one of the few DMs to be happy to be called pig headed for not allowing all of the UA because I had recognize the unbalancing effects after only one year. And yet, the "But it is an Official Book" syndrome was there, and very strong. A lot of Tasha's that we have seen so far is clearly rushed out content either to appease some accusation or to catter to a very vocal portion of the audience. Very few of the "samples" we were shown are truly thought of. Hell the UA Revised Ranger of 2016 is way better than the BS we've been shown/given.

As for the archetype read this again.

I think easily recognized concepts and archetypes are part of what D&D what it is.


Besides, playing against type, challenging preconceived ideas of what certain people can or cannot be is being taken away by this new rule. You can't challenge a bias if there is no bias, you can't break out of an archetype if there is not one.

Oofta is perfectly right. These three sentences just resume the whole argument.

And

This right here. 95% of the fantasy books written. 95% of the fantasy heroes in video games. 95% of the fantasy characters on tv. D&D has had an influence on. Many Hollywood writer rooms have D&D books in them. And I feel certain more than a few authors and video game designers have D&D books on their bookshelves. It has seeped into the culture, and one cannot talk fantasy without talking D&D.

When you remove definable archetypes, you steadily lose identity.

You can change archetypes. You can change races and make the orcs smart and noble and wise. But, you need archetypes. It is the velcro that allows people to adhere their memories to.

D&D has been this enduring and popular exactly because of the archetypes. This is what made it both distinctive and unique. Removing these just remove a big bunch of what D&D is. Other games tried this approach and are now lost to history.

 

[Remathilis]

What if I wanted to play a Halfling with breath weapon, though? If player characters are exceptional, there’s really no reason to ban that possibility. And if that’s possible, well, playing a Paladin with wildshape or a Barbarian with spells should be allowed as well.

Why even bother with rules and dice? If it's all make-believe, we can be and do whatever we want and don't need rule books to tell us what is and isn't possible. We can just sit around and tell stories to each other.

I mean, if you want to try the slippery slope argument, let's get to the bottom of the slope and say all rules aren't needed and that we are wasting our money on books that limit our imagination. Embrace all the possibilities.

 

[Scott Christian]

A lot of your post is very reasonable, and I appreciate it, but I wanted to zoom in on the bolded part.

Min/maxers
Optimizers
"players that like immediate gratification"

How about... casual players? They like things easier.
Player's that are new? They like things easier.
Beer and pretzel players? They oscillate, but I think they'd enjoy some easier games.
Players who are single parents?


I mean, a lot of people might like easier options in the game without being one of those three groups. Especially since there is a lot of negative baggage associated with those groups.

I agree with you. I was just lumping. I kind of picture people with limited time, like parents and beer and pretzel players to be immediate gratification. Again, I do not take umbrage at min/maxers or optimizers or immediate gratification players. I was just trying to show they are different than the long termers. But you are right, those other groups could (and should) have been included.

And, like you said, we know the effects of a max of 15 for those combos. Fewer people play them. And the effects of a 16? Well, more people will play them, that is a guarantee. Everything else is speculation, and that speculation is tending towards hyperbolic at times. But, you seem to want to simplify this discussion, so lets narrow focus down a bit to a question.

Let us assume that the "16" argument increases players who are happier with their builds. How bad for the "lore" of the gameworld does the rule have to be to outweigh player satisfaction? Because we know this rule will increase player satisfaction, and we know it is optional, so people to whom this road would make the game less fun can choose to keep taking the well-established path, so how bad of an effect does the rule have to have on other aspects of the game to outweigh those clear and obvious benefits?

The first part has been debated. In this very thread there have been statements that the same old combos would get played and that very little would change. I don't know if it will. But I guess the question is how much?

That is a great question. I do not know the answer. But, I would say that this rule might decrease player satisfaction just as easily as it will increase it. I am not trying to argue just to argue. But hear me out:

• Make everyone get a 16. Some people's satisfaction decrease. People we're speaking to on this very board.
• It's optional, but that is a different debate. Because optional at one table does not mean optional at another. I feel as adults, we all know and understand this. I play with very mature people, yet if the DM didn't want this book in use, but two players really did, the DM would fold, even though it will decrease his satisfaction. Like many DM's he does this to be kind and accommodating. (And by the way, it might irk another player at the table as well.)
• In psychology, often more choices equates to less satisfaction. This is true for many, and not just anxiety prone consumers. A restaurant with a great fixed menu can make guests equally happy as something like Cheesecake Factory that has a 12 page menu. (I keep going back to food analogies, ugh! )

So will most players be happier. In the short term, I suppose. In the long term, I don't know. But that is the question that sits right next to yours.

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly, Stonecunning is of questionable usefulness in its current form and doing away with it in favor of simply a proficiency in the History skill might be better anyway.

And I have never really gotten that whole "Elves don't sleep" thing. I never really see it highlighted much aside from with power gamers and otherwise most D&D games hardly even really incorporate it in any real way. You generally still have to get an inn room and effectively sleep for 8 hours regardless. If we were to get rid of it, I don't think it would be missed. Same with the free use of longswords and bows. It wasn't a thing in 4th, it didn't matter in 3rd as if you were playing a character who had an attack bonus high enough to hit with the thing then you already got martial weapons proficiency and in 5th edition it is a Str weapon and Elves are a Dex race-- so, again, its not really worth using. Now a long bow would obviously be useful, but... yeah, I just don't see a longbow being a necessary accessory when I imagine an Elven Wizard or Warlock-- really only Elven Rangers or Fighters.

The Dragonborn Breath Attack ought to be balanced against having a typical damaging cantrip if you can use it all the time or as a damaging 1st level spell once per long rest. Either way, it is an effect that could be duplicated with a dip into the Sorcerer class.

The only things that one might want to keep that I think that maybe one wants to keep as something classes can't just easily replicate would be maybe if Dwarfs still have advantage/resistance to Poison and Elves to Enchantments and Tieflings to Fire... But then I could easily imagine a feat being able to provide a similar resistance to a single non-physical damage type or a single school of spells.

Generally I feel as though any ability that is tied to the race should be something that one can gain through the right combination of 1st level classes and feat choices. At least the mechanical part of it should be obtainable even if the lore behind how those mechanics work for you is a little different.

I would love to see a new version of the races that strengthen core racial traits to make them more distinct. Maybe 6e will fix that if they remove asi from races.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Hey, why not? But no one is arguing in favor of getting rid of rules. The argument is that racial categories are problematic and limit player choice. If limiting player choice is bad, then it’s logical to get rid of any category that does.

 

[jasper]

@Chaosmancer Easier for.

How about... casual players? They like things easier…. DM. Here take this archetype.
Player's that are new? They like things easier. DM. Here don’t worry about floating stat thingies. Elfs have a +2 to dex.

Beer and pretzel players? They oscillate, but I think they'd enjoy some easier games.. DM. HEY YOU got to do math. B&P (NOT AFTER 2 Beers.)
Players who are single parents? ME....WELL uM. I don’t have an answer to that because that response makes no bloody sense.

On Tuesdays I am DMing for new players. Some new to Adventure League. Some New to D&D and tabletop. Easier is the PHB and just copy the stats changes. Seeing eyes glass over when I start mentioning multiple options. Tasha sounds like it is there for the whiny power gamers who grip about doing one hit point less than best buddy who did a mechanical damage build.

 

[Aldarc]

Besides, playing against type, challenging preconceived ideas of what certain people can or cannot be is being taken away by this new rule. You can't challenge a bias if there is no bias, you can't break out of an archetype if there is not one.

I'm not sure why or how this requires racial modifiers and abilities to perform. For example, are in-game humans not able to play against geo-cultural biases from being from another country from other in-game humans because their racial abilities are the same?

 

[jasper]

I would love to see a new version of the races that strengthen core racial traits to make them more distinct. Maybe 6e will fix that if they remove asi from races.

I agree. You have humans with +1 in each stat or a feat. Them there other races get their racial abliities. Night vision, a skill or two, And no classes get stat bumps just for taking a class.