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."

 

[dave2008]

What would you consider significant or practical, then?

Something that changes how the game is played.

Character creation that is balanced with what is in the PHB does not qualify, IMO. You still play the game* the same way. These are optional rules now (TCoE), so WotC clearly doesn't see it has game changing either.

*note: I am suggesting playing the game is a separate activity from creating characters.

 

[JEB]

They have suggested a few times that they would like 5e to be legacy edition. In addition, the changes you are talking about don't warrant a new edition. I expect a 50th Anniversary Dungeons and Dragons, but it will likely be backwards compatible, consolidate existing content, and have a few tweaks. Not enough to be considered a new edition IMO

They clearly stated that future products will design races in this new way. So when they consolidate existing content in this hypothetical 50th book, why would they not update the older races to match this design philosophy? Otherwise, they'd have some character races operating under 2014-2020 character creation rules, and others operating under 2021-2024 character creation rules; such an approach seems very unlikely. There are other options (leave out any new race option created since 2020, or retrofit said newer options to work under PHB 2014 rules with fixed ability score adjustments), but why would they, when this consolidated edition provides a prime opportunity?

Something that changes how the game is played.

Character creation that is balanced with what is in the PHB does not qualify, IMO. You still play the game* the same way. These are optional rules now (TCoE), so WotC clearly doesn't see it has game changing either.

*note: I am suggesting playing the game is a separate activity from creating characters.

3.0 and 3.5 played fundamentally the same, but that was clearly a significant and practical change.

Also, if Wizards doesn't see this design decision as game-changing, why did they bother telling us about it in that sidebar?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well you'll be happy to know that there is this great book called Tasha's cauldron of everything which allows exactly the thing that you want you can use the options in that book to move that +2 dex to +2 str and become the strongest halfling in the world.

I hate to break it to you....but before TCoE was released a halfling could have a 20STR and no more....and since it's release nothing has changed about that.

The only thing TCoE changed is how close to that 20 you are at level 1.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Something that changes how the game is played.

Character creation that is balanced with what is in the PHB does not qualify, IMO. You still play the game* the same way. These are optional rules now (TCoE), so WotC clearly doesn't see it has game changing either.

*note: I am suggesting playing the game is a separate activity from creating characters.

Indeed. And there are other things as well. For example you could create a player character using the sidekick rules. It doesn't matter how a character is created when it comes to actual play.

It changes the whiteroom character min/max minigame. but that isn't WotC's concern.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I will be interesting to see how these kinds of concepts will be developed over the months I would like to see where they will go with this.

plus anyone got ideas for other ideas to use this system on?

 

[teitan]

I don’t mind the changes and embracing of Tasha’s system but it’s odd because the races as presented in the PHB outside of Humans and half Orcs ARE called out as cultures. The sub races are explicitly identified with subcultures of those races such as Qualinesti being High Elves and Mountain Dwarves as Shield Dwarves for example. Even then the idea of Mountain Dwarves vs Hill dwarves and Wood elves vs high elves or even dark elves as implemented are inherently cultural differences based on the different values of those “sub races”. Even calling dark elves “Drow” is a demonstration of a culture applied to the dark elves.

As we see in cultural studies different cultures emphasize different things such as the rugged “redneck” culture of the Appalachian region of America where strength and hands on labor is emphasized while intellectual and artistic pursuits are degraded. Throughout the region these are near universal expressions. For some reason we don’t see these same things in other races in the game even with the blatant presentation. High elves emphasize grace and beauty, elegance, in their culture plus qualities we call chaos and good in game terms. Drow, the culture that seems to draw the most ire because of skin color that the intent was to be a negative photograph of the elves rather than any racist connotations we would apply today, even if problematic, have a culture and religion, which is very important to how cultures develop, have a culture that emphasizes the qualities we would recognize, unfailingly, as evil and chaos. Demon worship, strong religious influences defined by an irredeemably evil goddess, etc but as we see in Wildemount, that’s just one group of dark elves. But all of these are ELVES and different cultural examples within that species. that isn’t to say that all members of these sub cultures follow those alignments and tendencies but those coming from the Underdark would experience a similar upbringing that emphasizes the strengths and weaknesses within that culture.

If you look at these examples and see racism you have a limited imagination at best and are quite possibly inclined to systemic racism at worst. just like the kid that grew up in Appalachia to be an artist rather than a coal miner, variables exist. I think the error WOTC is making with races is that they are forgetting even their own presentation on the races as cultures and how they have variations in different campaign worlds that don’t fit the default cultures represented in the Realms or Greyhawk for those races. A Drow is an elf with different cultural values. Drow isn’t even their name, it’s an acknowledgement of how their decisions led to their current station as those who betrayed the Seldarine. That story doesn’t play out on other worlds so why even call them Drow in Eberron for example?

what WOTC should do in the future besides expanding and developing the Tasha rules a bit better, is, when presenting a new setting, that they present differences in the default bonuses of a subculture and provide the fluff that explains why on this world these things vary rather than expect Elves and Dwarves, gnomes etc to always be the same from world to world to world as has been done in the past.

 

[Flamestrike]

Did you say Gothic Castle?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Sorry, I have read the last pages too fast. I guess there is a conflict between creative freedom and coherence with the canon lore. Always there is a player with crazy ideas, for example a barbarian gnome with a springan ancestor, and when he is furious, the rage addes a magic effect and become bigger, something like the racial durgear power. Some DMs would allow this in the tabletop, but others don't, and usually the DM has got the last word.

What is the difference between genetic/biology/lineage/ancestry and nurture/culture? Let's imagine two twin brothers, when they are little children there is a forest fire. They are accidentally separated and one of them find a planar gate. To survive the fire enters and go to other world, with a different culture. A decade later both they are together, and the lost brother find the planar gate again and returns to his home. Both brothers meet each other again. How should be the stats of these characters? Other example is a dead PC who couldn't pay for a resurrection spell and then reincarnation is used because this was cheaper. The memory and culture hasn't changed, but the body and biology is different. 3.5 Unearthed Arcana book had got a chapter about alternate PC races from different regions (cold weather, tropical, sea, dessert or elemental).

I suggest something like the option of some racial trait to be replaced with a racial feats, and spell slots be spent to cast spontaneasly a "racial spell", for example speak with animals by gnomes.

To offer options for the creation of PC is good, but we take care about potential abuse by munchkins.

I remember an article from Dragon Magazine #341 pag 92-93 ( I bought it, not pirate download) with the title "Martial Cultures" where the racial traits could replaced with others to play with rangers and barbarians. For example the gnome barbarian lost speak with animals but won cure minor wounds, guidance, jump and resistance (self only) once day. I loved that concept because this allowed races to be typecasted into the same type of classes always.

---

I miss the transitional classes, like the monster classes but the PC gets levels of monster template, for example a tielfling becomes a half-infernal, or a dragonborn become half-dragon.

Do I have got a dirty mind or has anybody more tought about a hexborn with a gothic lolita clothing? The hexborn have born to be the ultimate D&D maho-shojo/magical girl, cute as a kender but sinister as a tielfling.

I suggest to add the option of a special "animal companion", a "bjära" a super-familiar with telepathic contact. This would allow a player to control two PCs, the original and the "monster pet". (The power balance wouldn't be broken, because it isn't a stronger PCs but an extra PC being added to the group).

(Fan art with characters from Disney's cartoon "The Owl House").​

 

[Flamestrike]

Wut. The Dhampirs bite ability looks insanely broken.

As a simple weapon, Paladins can smite with their Bites.

 

[Morrus]

Well you'll be happy to know that there is this great book called Tasha's cauldron of everything which allows exactly the thing that you want you can use the options in that book to move that +2 dex to +2 str and become the strongest halfling in the world.

I am happy about that. Some people, as this thread makes clear, aren't.