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

[Maxperson]

I still reject this position.

The term "Dungeon Master" refers much more to a title like "Master of Ceremonies" than it does to "Master". I don't need to have absolute control over everything.

You have it, though. The game gives it to you. If you give up some of that power, you do so from a position of absolute authority.

Do I have veto power? Sure, but that doesn't make me a dictator.

Yes, it does. If final power rests solely with one person, that person is a dictator, even if benevolent.

 

[tetrasodium]

I still reject this position.

The term "Dungeon Master" refers much more to a title like "Master of Ceremonies" than it does to "Master". I don't need to have absolute control over everything. Do I have veto power? Sure, but that doesn't make me a dictator.

The system is important. d&d is not setup to be collaborative (near) coequal forces between gm & players because the rues are structured & balanced very heavily towards "gm dictates -> players react" as much as someone at wotc may have wanted it to be that when looting the GM's tool box for 5e, but it lacks the sort of bidirectional levers you see in games like fate where the players can use them to provide limited influence over the gm but the gm can use them rightback to provide even heavier influence over the players

 

[Chaosmancer]

You have it, though. The game gives it to you. If you give up some of that power, you do so from a position of absolute authority.

Yes, it does. If final power rests solely with one person, that person is a dictator, even if benevolent.

The system is important. d&d is not setup to be collaborative (near) coequal forces between gm & players because the rues are structured & balanced very heavily towards "gm dictates -> players react" as much as someone at wotc may have wanted it to be that when looting the GM's tool box for 5e, but it lacks the sort of bidirectional levers you see in games like fate where the players can use them to provide limited influence over the gm but the gm can use them rightback to provide even heavier influence over the players

The Pope has sole authority over the Catholic Church. Is he a dictator? No.

The Office of President has sole authority over the Executive Branch, does that mean that all Presidents are de facto Dictators? No.

The CEO of a company has sole authority over that company. Are they dictators? No.


And the GMs authority is not absolute. It has nuance. Part of the reason we constantly get these discussions about "players vs DMs" is this insistence that DMs are dictators with absolute authority. It is not necessarily true. Even if it is usually true, that does not mean that the role itself must be a dictatorship.


If I was the manager at a restaurant, I would be responsible for the food quality, the inventory, the menu, the seating arrangements, the pay roll, employee issues, scheduling, taxes, and a whole host of things meant to keep the restaurant running. That doesn't make me a dictator and that doesn't mean that I can't have an employee who handles some of those tasks.

 

[GreenTengu]

After all the arguing here....

I don't think this solved anything regarding race/class balance at all. If anything, it just made some problems worse. I kind of respect what they were trying to do, but.... no...

The truth is simply that they game is just too damn fundamentally broken at its core and this sort of patch-job just creates more broken combinations than the game previously had.

Does it suck that there is no such thing as a Strength-based or Wisdom-based Monk? Absolutely! The fact that one has to have maxed out Dexterity to be the best possible Monk is terrible. Is making it so that races that wouldn't naturally have a high Dexterity can have now maxed out Dexterity the proper option? Well.... no. Because it doesn't fix the other traits those races have that might upset things even worse.

Similarly-- I think one should be able to be a Rogue without having absolutely through-the-roof Dexterity-- an Intelligence or Wisdom or Charisma Rogue ought to all be perfectly valid options that maybe play marginally different, but they should all be possible. The main things preventing that are the idea that Dexterity gets to dictate one's chance to hit and extra damage as well as one's Initiative and Stealth.

Initiative absolutely should have the option to be tied to some mental stat rather than Dexterity-- and Stealth? I only see the most tangential connection between that and one's hand-eye coordination. Hell, even ranged attacks probably ought to have, at least the option, of being tied to Wisdom rather than Dexterity.

In the end the book may offer up new options to races that were already over-the-top broken, but it does hardly anything for races that were designed as utterly shafted in the first place-- like pretty much all of those that got written up as "monster races" despite being typical residents of the D&D world.

It's still impossible to create a functional Half-Orc, Goliath, Orc, Goblin or Kobold character of any class-- and Hobgoblins are still only good if one is a spell-caster.

So you get to play a Shield Dwarf of any class and be better than any other race aside from speed? Well-- great for you, sucks for everyone else.

 

[Maxperson]

The Pope has sole authority over the Catholic Church. Is he a dictator? No.

Yes, he is. The current Pope has even been dubbed the Dictator Pope.

The Office of President has sole authority over the Executive Branch, does that mean that all Presidents are de facto Dictators? No.

Apples and oranges. He does not rule the entire country, which means he can't be a dictator or even a ruler of any sort. The DM does have complete control over the entire game of Dungeons and Dragons, though.

The CEO of a company has sole authority over that company. Are they dictators? No.

Depends. If the CEO retains full control over who can be CEO, then he is a dictator. If the board of directors can remove him with a simple vote, he isn't. The players are incapable of removing a DM. They can quit the game(move to a different country than the Dictator), but they can't remove him.

And the GMs authority is not absolute. It has nuance. Part of the reason we constantly get these discussions about "players vs DMs" is this insistence that DMs are dictators with absolute authority. It is not necessarily true. Even if it is usually true, that does not mean that the role itself must be a dictatorship.

It is absolute. He can literally change, add or remove any rule in the game to anything he wants and nobody can stop it.

 

[Don Durito]

Maxed out anything is a big part of the problem here.

If it's assumed a main stat is going to be boosted to keep up with the maths (and it doesn't really matter if that was the design intention - due to player psychology it's the end result), then the other ability scores that don't get boosted lose in comparison.

This is an issue for classes that need multiple stats, like for example strength clerics, or Varlor bards. That +2 you have in Strength was mostly good enough at level 1, but it's looking decidedly less good at level 10 when the melee specialists are attacking with an ability score of 20. (And of course the issues with saves are well known). Or another way to look at it, you're not really choosing one score to raise, you're choosing 5 scores to dump.

This is part of what makes having the right ability scores seem so important. Because when you start you're taking a run up to the end point. The scaling makes basic trades off hard to make work. If for example Dex added to all AC and ability scores didn't scale, then a 14 Str /16 Dex Greatsword Fighter and a 16 Str /14 Dex, Greatsword fighter would be pretty similar with different strengths and weaknesses. But of course the system is set up so that this type of Fighter has every reason to Max Strength, and doesn't need to concerned about Dexterity to anything like the same extent - which means that elves are not different greatsword fighters, but lesser ones.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't see what a +5 gets you, but if you really want to keep on this train, go ahead. I'm not sure if you realize this but, my players tend to roll stats (despite me recommending against it) so I've had more than one player start the game with a 20 in their prime state.

And the end result was.... nothing much. Sure, they rarely missed their attacks and their DCs were higher, but the game proceeded as it normally does. I'm not terrified that you are going to end up with high stats. I had that, my friend rolled and ended up with "The wizard that could do anything" his lowest stat was a 14. He wasn't even the most memorable character in that game for me.

I personally do not care about the +5. I am just pointing out the flawed logic if these attribute bonuses, are as you say, cultural. I mean, I get it. The attribute system is flawed no matter how you look at it. But let's at least supply some logic behind it. The starting attribute bonus is nature, and then as your character trains, it improves, which is nurture.

And, I've tried to "understand the other sides viewpoint". Their viewpoint is vague, their points keep shifting, and the strongest argument seems to be that if they can't be forced to have a 15 their characters aren't special anymore.

I mean, the point seems to consistently be "dwarves are meant to be fighters, so my dwarf bard isn't special if he is just as good of a bard as he is a fighter" And I've approached this issue in a half dozen ways, and I can't figure out how this is actually bad.

No. The point is about one side wants a 16 to start with. The other side doesn't. WotC decided they wanted a 16 because it is easier. The 16 crowd applauds the decision. The 15 crowd thinks it does nothing to better the game, and in fact, may hurt it in the long run.

As far as your approach, (and I am sorry) but all I have seen is dismissiveness. Giving you the examples in the PHB as against type, and you dismiss their definition and expand it to match your own. Given quotes from the DMG and PHB about traits, and you interpret it with only one lens. Having Oofta and others patiently explain how it is possible that the deconstruction of patterns can also deconstruct lore, and you eloquently, yet numerous times, say it won't.

My advice (and I know you are not asking, but I am giving it anyway) would be to approach it as if Oofta is correct. It will homogenize the races. But then point out the positive benefits it will have on lore. You started down this road with me with the nature vs nurture debate, but then I was the jerk that didn't let it go. Sorry.

Finally, for the third time, I would like a straight answer. Why are Orc Clerics not archetypical? I've provided solid lore and mechanical reasons to support them, the only thing they lack is a bonus to wisdom, which you have claimed is the sign that something is "archetypical" so what prevents Orc Clerics from being archetypes for their race?

The real answer is because rules need to be balanced. But that won't suffice for you. I mean technically, there is lore for elves to be dexterous, wise, charismatic, and intelligent. But the PHB needs to balance the races out, so they focus on the ones that best fit the archetype. It's like the old multiple choice questions:
1. Choose the character trait that best defines an orc.
A) Strength
B) Dexterity
C) Wisdom
D) Charisma

 

[Scott Christian]

Initiative absolutely should have the option to be tied to some mental stat rather than Dexterity-- and Stealth? I only see the most tangential connection between that and one's hand-eye coordination. Hell, even ranged attacks probably ought to have, at least the option, of being tied to Wisdom rather than Dexterity.

While the rules do exist for a DM to say make an intelligence based stealth roll, not many do.

I was just thinking about stats this morning and couldn't help but to think four stats should be tied to combat and magic, and intelligence and charisma should be all skills. This way you could have a true skill monkey or a half skill monkey/fighter, or someone that is good at fighting but not so good at skills.

Of course that lead me down a rabbit hole of negating the bonuses for stats, and instead making them caps for the skills and fighting. That way they don't supply a bonus, but rather a natural limit. Of course as one levels you could raise them. Then that lead to me thinking D&D is about elitism anyway, so probably best to change the stats to the old 3-18 with percentages.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I personally do not care about the +5. I am just pointing out the flawed logic if these attribute bonuses, are as you say, cultural. I mean, I get it. The attribute system is flawed no matter how you look at it. But let's at least supply some logic behind it. The starting attribute bonus is nature, and then as your character trains, it improves, which is nurture.

This ignores a few things.

First, and perhaps the most troubling, is that this takes the position that some people are just born more intelligent than others. And, you'll notice, that those who are born stronger and tougher (more suited for physical work) are rarely born smarter. In fact, one of the more common combos is Intelligence and Charisma, which makes for a good leader.

So, some people are born to be leaders and others are born to do manual labor, and if you are starting to hear a sound, that might be a dog whistle for some really destructive and dangerous rhetoric that a lot of us do not want in our games.

Additionally, let us not forget that DnD characters start out as adults, not babies or small children. Why is this important? Because if a guy has been lifting weights and strength training from age 10 to age 25, then I'd expect him to be incredibly strong. The culture angle would explain this, and yes, you run into weird cases with elves and dwarves and other long lived races, because logically someone who is trains from 10 to 200 would be even stronger. But this is not a problem only for this, this is a problem for all elves and dwarves for the entire game. Why do they barely have any more skills or weapons training than a human who likely has been doing it for no more than 6 years? This has always been an issue and whatever solution you've been using probably could work here too.

No. The point is about one side wants a 16 to start with. The other side doesn't. WotC decided they wanted a 16 because it is easier. The 16 crowd applauds the decision. The 15 crowd thinks it does nothing to better the game, and in fact, may hurt it in the long run.

As far as your approach, (and I am sorry) but all I have seen is dismissiveness. Giving you the examples in the PHB as against type, and you dismiss their definition and expand it to match your own. Given quotes from the DMG and PHB about traits, and you interpret it with only one lens. Having Oofta and others patiently explain how it is possible that the deconstruction of patterns can also deconstruct lore, and you eloquently, yet numerous times, say it won't.

My advice (and I know you are not asking, but I am giving it anyway) would be to approach it as if Oofta is correct. It will homogenize the races. But then point out the positive benefits it will have on lore. You started down this road with me with the nature vs nurture debate, but then I was the jerk that didn't let it go. Sorry.

If I accept the PHB defintion, then the only possible way to play against type is to have a poor stat match up. It reduces a narrative choice down to numbers. Like you said, do I have a 15 or a 16.

And, I'm sorry, but that is not what that term means in the broader context of storytelling, acting, roleplaying, ect. And additionally... how boring is that? Not to attack anyone here, purely looking at the PHB, but I could play the most stereotypical dwarf ever, and since he is a monk with a 15 Dex he is against type? And if I am playing a technology loving High Elf who hates the forest, but I have a 16 in Int... I'm playing fully into my archetype as an elf?

And, I've covered your quotes from the PHB, and pointed out that they cover the entire section. Your assertion that those quotes are meant to apply to racial ASIs is akin to going to the Bakery section at a store and saying that everything inside is made from Bread. While, yes, the bakery sells bread, they also sell many products that are not bread, and simply being in a bakery does not make something bread.



But I think my biggest problem with your suggestion here, is that you want me to assume the other side is right. And I have two issues with that.

First, if I responded by saying "Yes you are right about your assertion, but..." then their response will natural be, "That doesn't matter, because [repeat assertion]." Oofta has actually done this already. He has said that the things this rule adds to the game are overshadowed by the things it loses. So, your advice would be for me to say "Yes, this rule is a net loss for the game." and at that point, I'm just conceding my entire position.

And secondly, I am freeing the other side from the burden of proof. I don't know why I see this time and time again, but it makes no sense. If you want to convince me of something, don't tell me to go convince myself that you are right. By approaching this from the position that my opposition must be correct, then I lose all ability to counter-claim, all ability to provide opposing evidence, all ability to say that my points alter the scales to lean in my favor. And meanwhile, all the other side has to do is make a claim. They need to put in zero effort to defend that claim, zero effort to support that claim, they just get to say something and I'll tell them they are right.

Well, I'm sorry. I don't do that. I do not just assume that the person I'm arguing with is 100% correct in their assertions. At that point, there is no need to argue at all.

The real answer is because rules need to be balanced. But that won't suffice for you. I mean technically, there is lore for elves to be dexterous, wise, charismatic, and intelligent. But the PHB needs to balance the races out, so they focus on the ones that best fit the archetype. It's like the old multiple choice questions:
1. Choose the character trait that best defines an orc.
A) Strength
B) Dexterity
C) Wisdom
D) Charisma

You wink as though that is an obvious answer. But, this misses two points.

The first? You get more than one character trait as your ASI. Orcs got Strength and Con, but in the same book Tritons got Con, Charisma and Strength. So, I have no need to limit myself to a single answer anyways.

Secondly, Wisdom does make sense. A lot of sense. Wisdom is the stat associated with Clerical and Druidic magic. As a race that heavily favors the worship of gods, wisdom makes sense. In Eberron Orcs are the source of Druidic magic in the setting, tying into the imagery of orc shamans which is very common for the tribal people tropes that orcs play into.

Also, what is one of the big things about their relationship with the gods? Signs, omens and portents. Orcs are constantly observing the natural world, looking for signs. They are... perceptive, seeking insight into the meaning of these signs. I'm sure you are seeing what I did there. Any other skills they should be good at? Yes. Survival is a by word for the orcs, who being a tribal people would by necessity be good at tracking, hunting, gathering food, finding water. Their life style fully supports this idea. Anything else, actually, again, yeah. Animal Handling may seem strange, but Volo's did give us two examples. Red Fangs of Shargaas raise and ride Giant Bats and one of only 4 beasts the book added were Aurochs. Sacred oxen that the Orcs who revere Bahgtru raise and ride into battle.

And, to support this even further. The "Eberron" Orc is the one everyone is saying is canon now (mostly because it is the version of the Orc without the Int penalty) is also a version that gets the ability "Primal Intuition" which allows them proficiency in two of the following, Animal Handling, Insight, Intimidation, Medicine, Nature, Perception, Survival. And, if you break that list down you see 1 charisma skill, 1 Intelligence skill and 5 wisdom skills, showing a clear predominance towards wisdom.

So, sure, many people want to pigeon hole orcs into "Orc Strong" and leave it there. But, since I'm not required to be limited to one choice, and there is a lot stacked up over here in wisdom.... Why not pick wisdom?

 

[GreenTengu]

The real answer is because rules need to be balanced. But that won't suffice for you. I mean technically, there is lore for elves to be dexterous, wise, charismatic, and intelligent. But the PHB needs to balance the races out, so they focus on the ones that best fit the archetype. It's like the old multiple choice questions:
1. Choose the character trait that best defines an orc.
A) Strength
B) Dexterity
C) Wisdom
D) Charisma

Given that Wisdom covers the skills Animal Handling, Insight, Medicine, Perception, and Survival, that last one being particularly key to a race whose primary cultural feature is that they thrive in regions that humans would struggle to even live, as well as the attribute that one makes a save against to resist fear-- I would actually say that Wisdom is as important to an Orc functioning as an Orc, maybe more important, than anything else on that list-- as much as I am sure you thought the answer should be Strength. However high one's strength is, I don't really see one living very long as an Orc without Wisdom. Constitution is also extraordinarily important as it allows them to shake off the cold or bites from venomous creatures or recover from wounds inflicted on them either by fellow orcs or by whatever they are preying on.

Strength, Constitution and Wisdom ought to be the three primary attributes one should be raising to make an Orc. A good, functional Orc should not be lacking in any of those three. I don't really think it much matters which of the three is the highest, it'll still seem Orcy enough if all of them are 12 or higher.

High Charisma Orcs are probably a rarety, but obviously do exist as every now and again you get one that can bring together a whole lot of bickering tribes and lead them in a big raid-- but the fact that Orcs primarily live in small tribes that are constantly fighting with all other Orc tribes indicates that Charisma, outside of the sole application of Intimidation, is probably typically a point of weakness for them. Dexterity is also a trait that I imagine would be rare-- sure, you might get the occasional Orc archer, but as I noted in my last post-- I think one should be able to substitute Wisdom in for Dexterity when it comes to archery. And obviously Intelligence is probably their lowest stat given that living in small nomadic tribes means any learning they are doing is purely from experience and maybe oral storytelling traditions. Most probably don't have much experience with arcane magic or technology either.