Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8112133" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>My concern, as is the case for <em>any</em> situation where a mathematical structure is changed for aesthetic reasons (you find it aesthetically more pleasing to do away with add-on bonuses and just go straight to the numbers), is that it is not clear or obvious what the balance effect will be. <em>Especially</em> because we have the extra variable of needing to <em>decide</em> what cost 16, 17, and (potentially) 18 should have. It doesn't help that it also has the potential to create perverse incentives (both "specialists are so viable that no one ever plays generalists" and "generalists are so good that there's never any point to being specialized" are possible outcomes here) <em>and</em> is likely to require changes beyond "just remove ability score bonuses from character races" (because of things like standard Human, Half-Elf, Mountain Dwarf, or Gnoll, each of which breaks the usual +2/+1 pattern in some way). Like, 5e is already not a <em>terribly</em> transparent ruleset in terms of what consequences may happen, but I can point to these various things as, "you'll have to sit down and figure them out, too."</p><p></p><p>None of this should be taken as saying the question is insoluble. It <em>might</em> be insoluble, but it also might not. Regardless, jumping into it <em>because</em> the design would be more consonant/smooth/etc., without concern for the mathematical effects of such a change, is a risk.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8112133, member: 6790260"] My concern, as is the case for [I]any[/I] situation where a mathematical structure is changed for aesthetic reasons (you find it aesthetically more pleasing to do away with add-on bonuses and just go straight to the numbers), is that it is not clear or obvious what the balance effect will be. [I]Especially[/I] because we have the extra variable of needing to [I]decide[/I] what cost 16, 17, and (potentially) 18 should have. It doesn't help that it also has the potential to create perverse incentives (both "specialists are so viable that no one ever plays generalists" and "generalists are so good that there's never any point to being specialized" are possible outcomes here) [I]and[/I] is likely to require changes beyond "just remove ability score bonuses from character races" (because of things like standard Human, Half-Elf, Mountain Dwarf, or Gnoll, each of which breaks the usual +2/+1 pattern in some way). Like, 5e is already not a [I]terribly[/I] transparent ruleset in terms of what consequences may happen, but I can point to these various things as, "you'll have to sit down and figure them out, too." None of this should be taken as saying the question is insoluble. It [I]might[/I] be insoluble, but it also might not. Regardless, jumping into it [I]because[/I] the design would be more consonant/smooth/etc., without concern for the mathematical effects of such a change, is a risk. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
Top