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]

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?

I believe they would replace the current PHB race section with a new one based on Tasha's and this UA and hopefully a few tweaks.

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

I didn't play 3/3.5 so I am not familiar with those changes; however, they are technically the same edition. A true edition change is like what happened between 2e-to-3e and 3e-to-4e and 4e-to-5e. I don't expect that much change.

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

I can't speak for WotC, but game-changing and changing how you play the game are different. One requires a change in editions, the other, not necessarily.

 

[dave2008]

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.

That didn't change with Tasha's and that is the same for all races. The max is 20 for all races for all stats with a few exceptions that are not race specific: magic items, supernatural gifts, boons, & barbarians at 20th level (for STR).

 

[Blue]

Assuming these rules make it out of playtest, any PC created using a race in a subsequent sourcebook can put their +2/+1 anywhere they like, and choose Common and another starting language. Whereas any 5E race before this has their ability score adjustments locked to two (or fewer) stats, and (in most cases) only specific languages available. But in your view, having two sets of PC races operating under two different premises, one of which is now explicitly obsolete, would represent no significant or practical change to the game? What would you consider significant or practical, then?

False premise: PHB races are explicitly obsolete.

Picking races that compliment your class is still completely able to be done, so all of those races are still perfectly usable, not obsolete. the new ones just can pair with more classes - they have more options, not a whit more power. Half elf with two floating +1s didn't obsolete any of the other races.

Also, many existing races have racial feats which arguably make them more powerful than the new races - I know I've felt that looking at some races from Theros.

It's trivially easy to show you can make as effective of a character with the existing races as the new. There is no legitimate claim of obsolescence.

 

[Blue]

I still like the fact that the Vampiric Bite is a monk weapon technically. Limited uses due to CON/Prof, but still we had Smite Dentures at one point with a topic on here.

I pointed this out earlier in the thread and was corrected. The Empowerment is limited usage, but you can Bite as often as you want. Including with advantage due to being below half HPs.

 

[Alzrius]

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

Genuine question, Morrus: in 5E, what Strength score do you feel Zidi needs in order to be distinctively strong the way you envision her?

 

[MGibster]

Genuine question, Morrus: in 5E, what Strength score do you feel Zidi needs in order to be distinctively strong the way you envision her?

I think Morrus has made it pretty clear how strong he wants Zidi to be. He wants Zidi to be at the maximum strength available to any PC at whatever level. So if maximum strength is 20 he wants Zidi to be at 20. And this is why I stress that a lot of these discussions about gaming simply boil down to preference. While Morrus and I have different preferences, there's absolutely nothing that makes mine right and his wrong. If both Morrus and his group are having fun with the game then they're doing it right.

 

[Alzrius]

I think Morrus has made it pretty clear how strong he wants Zidi to be. He wants Zidi to be at the maximum strength available to any PC at whatever level.

That wasn't my understanding. I thought he wanted her to be reliably stronger than the strongest goliath, who'd have a Strength of 20. Which would require that her Strength be higher.

 

[MGibster]

Yep, I love DnD but I feel like it is moving towards the new crowd. The older crowd (and I'm younger than many of the old crowd) are having to adapt or move on.

It is moving towards the new crowd as it should if WotC wants D&D to remain relevant to future generations. The new crowd are younger people in the teens and twenties who grew up with different media than I did and have likely never known a time when D&D didn't have Dragonborn or Tieflings as basic playable races. D&D has constantly changes over the years and I expect it'll keep changing until it's no longer produced.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I must say: I love these. I wish they would give us a small PDF for the legacy races changed to lineage. I think the devs put to much emphasis and weight on the ASI and not enough on the rest of the features.

As for the proficiencies that are not considered biological but more societal, just put more weight on the backgrounds! As of now, most backgrounds are occupational, but there's nothing preventing the devs to make them a little more robust and have them cover the origin of a character in terms of society.

Ex:
Background
Elven Blade Dancer
Proficiency: Performance, Acrobatics
Proficiency: Short sword, long sword
Proficiency: Elvish or Sylvan
Feature: fancy stuff yadayada

 

[Hurin70]

I think Morrus has made it pretty clear how strong he wants Zidi to be. He wants Zidi to be at the maximum strength available to any PC at whatever level. So if maximum strength is 20 he wants Zidi to be at 20. And this is why I stress that a lot of these discussions about gaming simply boil down to preference. While Morrus and I have different preferences, there's absolutely nothing that makes mine right and his wrong. If both Morrus and his group are having fun with the game then they're doing it right.

It is all about preference.

I would prefer Strength to work the way it has always worked. The maximum strength for a strong Elf at creation would be something like 15 or 16 (point buy). That's still far stronger than the average Elf, or even the average Minotaur. That seems sufficient to me.

The maximum Strength for a Minotaur at creation would be 17 or 18. That is because Minotaurs are unnaturally big and strong. You could still have a Minotaur who is weak for a Minotaur, with only a 10 Strength, but that weak Minotaur is still stronger than a weak Elf.

Someone also brought up the example of the brothers separated at birth, with one later learning the Riddle of Steel and the other being sent to Art School. If they met up later in life, the Riddle learner would be stronger, for sure. But they both would still be big, both would still have horns (unless Art School guy cut them off to annoy his parents), and both would still be bigger, stronger, and hornier than the weakest Elf.