D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: Gothic Lineages & New Race/Culture Distinction

The latest Unearthed Arcana contains the Dhampir, Reborn, and Hexblood races. The Dhampir is a half-vampire; the Hexblood is a character which has made a pact with a hag; and the Reborn is somebody brought back to life.

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

Perhaps the bigger news is this declaration on how race is to be handled in future D&D books as it joins other games by stating that:

"...the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage."

 

[Scribe]

I understand wanting the option in the book for race restrictions (it is unlikely to happen, so prepare yourself), I don't feel anything is lost by not including it. I mean the mechanics are right their for you to use, you just need to decided how you want to restrict them. There is nothing you can do with the new direction that you could do with the old direction. Nothing is lost, They only thing I can see being lost is the lack of choice.

I want more race restrictions than RAW, but I understand there is nothing gained by having those in the book. In fact, if they do include race restrictions in future books, it will be more work for as I am sure I will not agree with their choices. I would rather start from a blank slate and that is what this gives me.

Yeah, I know. The writing is on the wall, we all should know how this is going to go.

It simply becomes a question of who does the work.

Which is easier to do at our own table?

All races are a flat +2/+1, it's up to the player choice.

All races will need to be reviewed by the DM to establish a framework that reflects physiological differences.

I think any reasonable person will know what is easier.

So why is it OK to put the work on the DM, when previously (like, forever) that was the framework we worked in?

Again, go ahead and make it default that we get 2/1, but if they are just going to take away options, I believe it's ok to ask why we need to accept that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, race/lineage just has no cultural component at all anymore? How does one represent things like cultural skill, weapon and tool proficiencies? These new lineages seem to have no room for you to have learned something from living among elves, for example. And without the proficiencies (and possibly other cultural traits formerly ascribed to race), are the new lineages weaker mechanically than the old races, or did they strengthen them to compensate for that loss?

This direction confuses me. I feel like they didn't think through their response.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So, race/lineage just has no cultural component at all anymore? How does one represent things like cultural skill, weapon and tool proficiencies? These new lineages seem to have no room for you to have learned something from living among elves, for example. And without the proficiencies (and possibly other cultural traits formerly ascribed to race), are the new lineages weaker mechanically than the old races, or did they strengthen them to compensate for that loss?

This direction confuses me. I feel like they didn't think through their response.

Or more is coming, like a Culture component that would include proficiencies.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or more is coming, like a Culture component that would include proficiencies.

But that would mean the lineages aren't playable now. Seems like an odd choice for UA were that the case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How so?

I explained in another post in this thread.

 

[dave2008]

It simply becomes a question of who does the work.

As I mentioned, I have to do the work anyway as I never like how they do it. So as a DM who prefers race restrictions, I would rather they keep their noses out of it

EDIT: I personally don't think giving each race a unique +2/+1 cuts it for me. I am ideally much more restrictive.

 

[Scribe]

As I mentioned, I have to do the work anyway as I never like how they do it. So as a DM who prefers race restrictions, I would rather they keep their noses out of it

Fair enough, and I appreciate the discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Culture should have an impact, I fully agree with you, but I think that it should be non-existent when it comes to racial traits. Your race is your genetic traits, not your culture.

I'd actually split the Background into two different categories, your Culture and your Occupation. Your Culture would be like the weapon/armor proficiencies that Dwarves, Elves, and Hobgoblins get, while your Occupation would give you skills, tools, and other proficiencies that you got from your former job (basically 5e's current Background but expanded a bit). High Elven Warrior and Mountain Dwarf could be Cultures, and any race and any character could choose it as long as they were raised amongst the right community. A Dragonborn could have Mountain Dwarf Training and get specific armor/weapon proficiencies, while a Half-Elf raised by Orcs should get proficiencies related to their upbringing.

Who you are genetically, who you are culturally, who you were occupationally, and who you are class-wise should all affect your character in different ways.

Sadly, this will have to wait till the next edition if we are ever to get it.

That sounds needlessly complex and text-heavy, compared to just presenting the sort of general iconic default, giving rules for replacing a lot of a race's traits, including both biological and cultural traits, and which lets players and DMs make mountain elves and forest dwarves just fine, along with runty-weakling minotaurs and chimpanzee-strong halflings.

Because if all we know about gnomes is that they resist magic, then I don't need gnomes to be a game feature at all. Letting them have +2 int, but allowing me to change that if I want to, helps me and my DM talk about gnomish cultures, tropes, expernal vs internal views of gnomish culture and people, etc, in ways that won't happen without that default.

 

[dave2008]

Fair enough, and I appreciate the discussion.

Question: You seem to want racial differences, but RAW now their really aren't any. Yes a minotaur may get a +2 STR, but in the end the minotaur's max is still 20, same as the halfling. What exists now is a false difference IMO. That is the big reason it is so easy for me to accept this revision. It really isn't revising anything IMO.

Do you really think giving some creatures a +2, others a +1, and others nothing to a given stat really makes a difference? Even if they all have a 20 in the stat in the end?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

but in the end the minotaur's max is still 20, same as the halfling.

I rarely see anyone reach 20 in any stat, except what is boosted by race, and even that only sometimes, within the level range that most campaigns ever reach. An elf, IIRC, needs level 12 (15 to 17 at 4, 17 to 19 at 8) to hit Strength 20 with point buy, while a Mountain Dwarf hits 20 STR at level 8. Most fighters, again IME, either split one of their first 3 ASIs, or take a feat with one of them. Variant Human Fighters are the exception, but the mountain dwarf still spends a lot more time at STR 20 than the human, assuming same class.

So, any lack of difference, IMO, is...a spreadsheet reality, not a table reality.