D&D 5E (2024) New Jeremy Crawford Interviews

[Remathilis]

Indeed, doing away with subspecies appears to have been a goal of the 2024 species redesigns. They seem to be shifting towards the dragonborn ancestry model, where you pick an option from a table that determines the selection of a number of options for a common feature for the species. E.G., damage type for the breath weapon and damage resistance with dragonborn, always-prepared spells with elves and tieflings, etc.

One thing that is nice about this approach is that it’s very easy to homebrew new options. Want a custom quicksilver dragonborn ancestry for your home game? Pick a damage type and it’s good to go. Have a player in your Curse of Strahd game who’s character just died and wants to know if they can play a dusk elf? Just choose a cantrip, a first level spell, and a second level spell that feel on-theme, and Bob’s your uncle. The furry at your table is desperate to play a Tiefling descended from Arcanaloths? Just ask them what cantrip, damage resistance, and two spells they think a fox demon would have, and bada-bing, bada-boom!

Of course, that breaks the old versions of certain subspecies. In particular, the MotM style elves and the ghostwise halflings are wildly out of step with their PHB equivalents. I suspect we may one day get a more PHB -ified version of them (reduced to bonus spell lists) but for now, they exist as the better of the two options.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because they're fairly simple story-telling devices?

Yeah, but a BAD storytelling device.

Why do you think there was all these issues regarding orcs all these years? Because every single orc was always presented in the exact same way with no differentiation... "bad", "evil", "savage" creatures that were able to be killed on sight...

...until someone decided in some module or novel or something at some point said "Hey, I'm going to make a GOOD orc!" And why did this happen? Because they realized this idea that every single member of an intelligent species being exactly the same is stupid. And pointless. And unrealistic. Of course there's probably a good orc out there! Why wouldn't there be? There has to be at least one, right?

And then at that point, MORE people start making "good orcs" or "good drow" or "good gnolls" etc. etc. etc. Which pretty much results in all of us coming to the obvious conclusion that intelligent beings are NOT all the same, and trying to portray them that way is childish and for people too lazy to create actual motivations for their characters.

 

[Delazar]

JC still didn’t open his copy of Dragonbane

 

[pemerton]

this idea that every single member of an intelligent species being exactly the same is stupid. And pointless. And unrealistic.

The multiplicity of intelligent, more-or-less human peoples is already unrealistic. They're fiction, not scientific conjecture.

Yeah, but a BAD storytelling device.

Why do you think there was all these issues regarding orcs all these years? Because every single orc was always presented in the exact same way with no differentiation... "bad", "evil", "savage" creatures that were able to be killed on sight...

The issue with Orcs is not that they are a story-telling device, but that the tropes used to tell the story are blatantly racist (going back to JRRT's use of stereotypes of "eastern" peoples in his depiction of Orcs).

But I don't think I've heard it suggested that the use of Halflings as a story-telling device (the "perspective" character in a sea of fantasy) is racist - although it does position a certain sort of English person as the one whose perspective is being centred.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The multiplicity of intelligent, more-or-less human peoples is already unrealistic. They're fiction, not scientific conjecture.

The issue with Orcs is not that they are a story-telling device, but that the tropes used to tell the story are blatantly racist (going back to JRRT's use of stereotypes of "eastern" peoples in his depiction of Orcs).

But I don't think I've heard it suggested that the use of Halflings as a story-telling device (the "perspective" character in a sea of fantasy) is racist - although it does position a certain sort of English person as the one whose perspective is being centred.

So you're suggesting that since one thing is unrealistic (having dozens of different intelligent species) then there's no reason not to have other stuff also be unrealistic (that every single member of said species behaves in the exact same way)? I mean okay... if that works for you and your world-building, fine. I find that to be rather silly and more importantly boring, but you do you.

And the orc example was not used to discuss "racism" in the various species-- that's not the point we were discussing-- but whether it makes sense for every single member of a species to behave or emotionally react in the same exact way. So we can substitute "All Elves are nimble and aloof!" or "All Dwarves are grumpy and stoic!" instead of "All Orcs are evil!" as the example for the discussion to get it back on track.

The whole point of the discussion I was having with @Oofta in the first place (before you Replied to me to make your own comment) was that needing "half-species" to be kept in the game in order to play a specific character trope was unnecessary... because you can play that trope with ANY character from ANY species. Why? Because all characters from all species can be and are different. So whatever character choice you want to make, you can formulate your character's backstory to play that choice with ANY species and you don't require WotC to include an entire species of people WITH that specific character trait.

Unless of course the player just has no creativity or is incredibly lazy and can't spare the 2 minutes to figure out a reason why a Gnome character could be "caught between two worlds", rather than requiring WotC to keep Half-Elves and Half-Orcs in the game in order to do it.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Why not? What stops you from creating cohesive societies if you want? IRL, cohesive societies are formed because of shared history and culture, not +2 to charisma.

I couldn't care less about +2 to Charisma - I'm perfectly fine letting starting ASIs shift to character background or just be left floating, Tasha-style.

I care about species traits. Things like Fey Ancestry, Skill Versatility, Trance and Elven Lineage (or the lack thereof, as appropriate). If "half-elves" (or any mix, really) are not allowed a set of shared species traits, then they are not a "species" in and of themselves, and that undercuts any worldbuilding scenario where they might see themselves as such (see Eberron's population of Khoravar).

History and culture are part of the equation, to be sure, but a population of humans living in a majority elven nation do not become elves just because they've spent generations sharing the same history and culture. And a population of Khoravar from Breland can view themselves as fully Brelish while still seeing themselves as a people distinct from their human neighbors.

To step away from Khoravar for a moment, dwarves are resistant to poison. In a section on dwarven culture, Exploring Eberron notes that this influences dwarven cuisine. Particularly in the majority dwarven Mror Holds, they regularly use various ingredients in their cooking that would be somewhat poisonous to humans and others - not enough to kill usually, but certainly enough to make someone sick - simply because they don't effect the typical dwarf. This is something that dwarven chefs have to keep in mind when serving non-dwarven customers, who may not know that some dishes on the menu aren't "safe" for them to eat.

Biology influences culture, particularly in a game with multiple sapient species living alongside each other.

Trying to take biology out of the equation for mixed ancestry characters by forcing them into the mold of one (and only one) of their "parent" species only diminishes their ability to stand apart as their own people.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Yeah which is another reason I don't think it's coming back. Also I don't think it even works fine for Dragonlance. It certainly wouldn't for Taladas (not that anyone cares!).

Fair enough - never been a Dragonlance fan, so I freely admit that my understanding of the setting is not the strongest.

 

[TiQuinn]

I mean he's not completely wrong, in some regards, but he is completely wrong in Half-Orc/Elf being 'too close' to Orc/Elf. They are telling completely different stories, and just because they (Wizards) have decided to make the mechanics as bland as possible, doesnt mean they are conceptually close.

Yes. But. What kinds of stories were those half species telling?

 

[dave2008]

...-- but whether it makes sense for every single member of a species to behave or emotionally react in the same exact way.

I just want to point out that all orcs (or whatever race) being evil =/= all orcs behave or emotionally react in the same way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just want to point out that all orcs (or whatever race) being evil =/= all orcs behave or emotionally react in the same way.

I don't care. That's not the point of the discussion.