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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8113524" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Who cares if a third party can tell? DnD isn't exactly marketed as a spectator sport.</p><p></p><p>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If this is what they mean, then I reject it as a problem. In fact, it seems to me to be the main benefit. We will see more combinations. Increasing the likelihood of characters that you rarely see at the table is a good thing. </p><p></p><p>Unless you can tell me how getting more diverse characters in more diverse roles is a negative for the game?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not the one who started calling it gimping their character. I believe that was [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] in one of his responses to me. Might have been [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] though. I just kept using their terminology. </p><p></p><p>But maybe they meant it was only gimping them to make the choice to move the scores.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, I wasn't arguing that the patterns would go away, because I didn't see this as a argument solely about how likely a race/class combo was to show up. </p><p></p><p>I saw this as a discussion on whether or not a character could still be unique. </p><p></p><p>A dwarf wizard is currently being seen as unique. I guess this is solely because dwarves make poor wizards. You can tell me it is, how did you phrase it, "choosing to have that character focus on something other than their class's primary calling" but if your Dwarf has the choice to move their stats to wizard stats, and instead chooses to keep their traditional dwarf stats, Oofta and others have told me that is gimping their character. </p><p></p><p>Instead, they want no choice. No ability to alter the dwarf at all, so their dwarf wizard is required to have the poorer stat array... and that makes them unique. Having the stats doesn't make them unique. Being a dwarf wizard doesn't make them unique. Being unique is solely a function (in the arguments being presented) of not having a choose in those stat numbers. </p><p></p><p>And that makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to me that they want to argue for their being fewer dwarf wizards so they can keep feeling unique. It makes no sense to me that they can only feel unique by having the choice withheld from them. </p><p></p><p>Will there be more dwarf wizards in the future? Yes. I guess that is bad though, because people who play dwarf wizards won't feel special anymore for not caring about the stat arrays that they don't care about. Or, like Oofta, they can no longer make a statement and point by playing their character. </p><p></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what is the body type for Wisdom bonuses? </p><p></p><p>Charisma? </p><p></p><p>I know it isn't an exact science, but we do have some answer right? I'm sure looking at Con and seeing that Orcs, Goliaths, Rock Gnomes and Stout Halflings all have the same con bonus of +1 makes perfect sense in this set-up of body type, correct?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, you can only play against type if in the process you aren't taking advantage of your numbers. </p><p></p><p>Guess Humans, Tielfings, Tritons, Warforged, and Half-Elves have no type to play against. Seeing as how they can cover such a wide range of stats with little issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or, instead of making a new subrace, we can represent things by moving the stats. No need to have a dozen statblocks when a few open ended options work just as well.</p><p></p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I don't think we could ever really know without being in the meetings when it was decided. </p><p></p><p>Did they get feedback seeing that races with floating ASI's were more popular because they were more flexible?</p><p></p><p>Did they see that in their video game properties ASIs were more often swapped?</p><p></p><p>Did they see responses in surveys about classes that had people saying "this would make a great archetype for [insert race] but they make poor [insert class] so can we make it for [insert second class] instead?</p><p></p><p>Was it partially a response to the firestorm kicked up a few months ago about orcs having negative intelligence?</p><p></p><p>Was it an optional rule they had always had on the back burner, but had never committed to because they figured DMs would just change it if they needed it changed themselves?</p><p></p><p>Did they get a lot of questions about how best to play odd combos?</p><p></p><p>Was it a combination of two, more, or all of these? </p><p></p><p></p><p>Without a transcript of meetings that took place, we literally have no way of being certain. So, I don't know if having a discussion about it is going to be fruitful. After all, we can only talk about what we saw, but there are a lot of factors we can't see, and they could have had just as big of a bigger impact than what we know about.</p><p></p><p></p><p>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think there really is a very strong "shared DnD experience". I've talked to people from other sections of the county before, who find out I'm playing DnD and want to chat, and their stories are often as strange as my own. </p><p></p><p>I mean, I've got a post-apocalyptic game where my warlock is betrothed and running a city, while we search for magic nukes in ancient ruins. I doubt that is a shared experience. </p><p></p><p>And sure, our Orc (half-orc stats) is strong and tough, but she is a barbarian, so that is expected. She is also the High Priestess of our city, wears jazzercise outfits, and punched a disease to death in a magic pond. Twice. </p><p></p><p>I think she falls outside the bounds of anyones "shared experience" with DnD, and I think what makes her amazing would still be true if she was playing a gnome instead of an Orc. Especially if she was still able to fulfill the barbarian role of being tough and strong.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8113524, member: 6801228"] Who cares if a third party can tell? DnD isn't exactly marketed as a spectator sport. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this is what they mean, then I reject it as a problem. In fact, it seems to me to be the main benefit. We will see more combinations. Increasing the likelihood of characters that you rarely see at the table is a good thing. Unless you can tell me how getting more diverse characters in more diverse roles is a negative for the game? I'm not the one who started calling it gimping their character. I believe that was [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] in one of his responses to me. Might have been [USER=6855114]@Helldritch[/USER] though. I just kept using their terminology. But maybe they meant it was only gimping them to make the choice to move the scores. See, I wasn't arguing that the patterns would go away, because I didn't see this as a argument solely about how likely a race/class combo was to show up. I saw this as a discussion on whether or not a character could still be unique. A dwarf wizard is currently being seen as unique. I guess this is solely because dwarves make poor wizards. You can tell me it is, how did you phrase it, "choosing to have that character focus on something other than their class's primary calling" but if your Dwarf has the choice to move their stats to wizard stats, and instead chooses to keep their traditional dwarf stats, Oofta and others have told me that is gimping their character. Instead, they want no choice. No ability to alter the dwarf at all, so their dwarf wizard is required to have the poorer stat array... and that makes them unique. Having the stats doesn't make them unique. Being a dwarf wizard doesn't make them unique. Being unique is solely a function (in the arguments being presented) of not having a choose in those stat numbers. And that makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to me that they want to argue for their being fewer dwarf wizards so they can keep feeling unique. It makes no sense to me that they can only feel unique by having the choice withheld from them. Will there be more dwarf wizards in the future? Yes. I guess that is bad though, because people who play dwarf wizards won't feel special anymore for not caring about the stat arrays that they don't care about. Or, like Oofta, they can no longer make a statement and point by playing their character. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So what is the body type for Wisdom bonuses? Charisma? I know it isn't an exact science, but we do have some answer right? I'm sure looking at Con and seeing that Orcs, Goliaths, Rock Gnomes and Stout Halflings all have the same con bonus of +1 makes perfect sense in this set-up of body type, correct? So, you can only play against type if in the process you aren't taking advantage of your numbers. Guess Humans, Tielfings, Tritons, Warforged, and Half-Elves have no type to play against. Seeing as how they can cover such a wide range of stats with little issue. Or, instead of making a new subrace, we can represent things by moving the stats. No need to have a dozen statblocks when a few open ended options work just as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I don't think we could ever really know without being in the meetings when it was decided. Did they get feedback seeing that races with floating ASI's were more popular because they were more flexible? Did they see that in their video game properties ASIs were more often swapped? Did they see responses in surveys about classes that had people saying "this would make a great archetype for [insert race] but they make poor [insert class] so can we make it for [insert second class] instead? Was it partially a response to the firestorm kicked up a few months ago about orcs having negative intelligence? Was it an optional rule they had always had on the back burner, but had never committed to because they figured DMs would just change it if they needed it changed themselves? Did they get a lot of questions about how best to play odd combos? Was it a combination of two, more, or all of these? Without a transcript of meetings that took place, we literally have no way of being certain. So, I don't know if having a discussion about it is going to be fruitful. After all, we can only talk about what we saw, but there are a lot of factors we can't see, and they could have had just as big of a bigger impact than what we know about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think there really is a very strong "shared DnD experience". I've talked to people from other sections of the county before, who find out I'm playing DnD and want to chat, and their stories are often as strange as my own. I mean, I've got a post-apocalyptic game where my warlock is betrothed and running a city, while we search for magic nukes in ancient ruins. I doubt that is a shared experience. And sure, our Orc (half-orc stats) is strong and tough, but she is a barbarian, so that is expected. She is also the High Priestess of our city, wears jazzercise outfits, and punched a disease to death in a magic pond. Twice. I think she falls outside the bounds of anyones "shared experience" with DnD, and I think what makes her amazing would still be true if she was playing a gnome instead of an Orc. Especially if she was still able to fulfill the barbarian role of being tough and strong. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
Top