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."

 

[Hurin70]

So, you could say a dhampir with that craving makes a bilious attack?

Yes... that's actually the etymology of bilious -- from 'bile'.

 

[Hurin70]

I‘m not playing the average Halfling population. I’m playing one specific heroic player character.

Yes, but so are other players. If your strongest Halfling is stronger than the strongest Minotaur, then the player who wants to play the strongest Minotaur -- stronger than any Halfling -- does what?

No, because we’re grown-ups capable of talking to each other.

You're avoiding answering the question.

We are talking to each other. And I'm asking: if you want to play an Elf that is 'stronger than the strongest Minotaur', what do I say to the guy who just rolled up a Minotaur and maxed his strength, hoping to be the strongest character?

You can't have it both ways. You can't have an Elf stronger than the strongest Minotaur in the same party or game world as a Minotaur that is stronger than the strongest Elf, unless you just don't care about logic.

Someone needs to be stronger, or they both need to be the same. I'm saying the Minotaur should be stronger; you seem to be saying they should both be the same. But if they're both the same, then Minotaurs are not stronger than Elves, despite the fact that they are described as especially big and strong in the racial descriptions ('large sized', over 6' tall, 'barrel-chested', with an 'imposing presence', etc.), and despite the fact that they were in fact stronger in earlier editions. The mechanics don't any longer match the description, the physiology, or the lore.

 

[Nathaniel Lee]

Cleric: I'll turn undead...
Dhampir/ Reborn: No, wait!

Also.. what happens if you strike a Dhampir with Blackrazor?

Anyone?

You're both an undead creature... and not an undead creature.

The text says:

So the "if the target is undead" effect of Blackrazor triggers. The Dhampir is healed and the wielder is harmed.

However, it doesn't say "the undead takes no damage" - they are both damaged and healed.

So assuming that the target is not unconscious when you strike them with the weapon, you effectively cannot knock them unconscious, no? Even if you do maximum damage with the weapon and then you only heal them for minimum HP, as per the rules for dropping to 0 hit points, the amount of damage is irrelevant except in the case of the leftover damage being more than their maximum hit points (excepting situations like polymorphed creatures, of course).

Of course, this is ultimately moot for most cases since RAW the standard is that monsters just outright die when dropped to 0. However, imagine a case where the player doesn't want to kill an enemy because they want to interrogate it... that vampire would just keep getting healed back to consciousness.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, but so are other players. If your strongest Halfling is stronger than the strongest Minotaur, then the player who wants to play the strongest Minotaur -- stronger than any Halfling -- does what?

You're avoiding answering the question.

We are talking to each other. And I'm asking: if you want to play an Elf that is 'stronger than the strongest Minotaur', what do I say to the guy who just rolled up a Minotaur and maxed his strength, hoping to be the strongest character?

I guess we duel to the death then, since you reject the premise that I might have a conversation.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, but so are other players. If your strongest Halfling is stronger than the strongest Minotaur, then the player who wants to play the strongest Minotaur -- stronger than any Halfling -- does what?

I think what it ultimately comes down to is that, as much as we (rightly) lionize the ability of the game to make any particular character concept playable (and ideally playable from level 1), there doesn't seem to be much recognition (at least in this discussion) of the fact that the rules necessarily disallow some character ideas, let alone the idea that that's not necessarily a problem that needs to be fixed.

Some time ago, I was asking a friend of mine if he wanted to join our D&D game. He wasn't much into fantasy, but loved comic books, and asked if he'd be able to play The Flash (or rather, a character with The Flash's powers). I hesitated, then started describing how a specialized build would - over a number of levels - let him move five or six times faster than most other characters, and even gain an extra attack or two every round. He just shook his head and said "that's not even close to what The Flash can do."

He was right. D&D doesn't really allow you to play that particular character concept, while other games do. That's not something that really needs to be fixed (or at least, I don't think so).

 

[Mind of tempest]

I think what it ultimately comes down to is that, as much as we (rightly) lionize the ability of the game to make any particular character concept playable (and ideally playable from level 1), there doesn't seem to be much recognition (at least in this discussion) of the fact that not only will the rules necessarily disallow some character ideas, let alone the idea that that's not necessarily a problem that needs to be fixed.

Some time ago, I was asking a friend of mine if he wanted to join our D&D game. He wasn't much into fantasy, but loved comic books, and asked if he'd be able to play The Flash (or rather, a character with The Flash's powers). I hesitated, then started describing how a specialized build would - over a number of levels - let him move five or six times faster than most other characters, and even gain an extra attack or two every round. He just shook his head and said "that's not even close to what The Flash can do."

He was right. D&D doesn't really allow you to play that particular character concept, while other games do. That's not something that really needs to be fixed (or at least, I don't think so).

yeah that is a too high level concept.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So assuming that the target is not unconscious when you strike them with the weapon, you effectively cannot knock them unconscious, no? Even if you do maximum damage with the weapon and then you only heal them for minimum HP, as per the rules for dropping to 0 hit points, the amount of damage is irrelevant except in the case of the leftover damage being more than their maximum hit points (excepting situations like polymorphed creatures, of course).

Of course, this is ultimately moot for most cases since RAW the standard is that monsters just outright die when dropped to 0. However, imagine a case where the player doesn't want to kill an enemy because they want to interrogate it... that vampire would just keep getting healed back to consciousness.

Well, evil DM might rule you where healed before the damage was applied, but I think it is the intent that Blackrazor can't kill an undead creature (PC or otherwise).

 

[Charlaquin]

One thing I don't understand - why the determination to keep using the term "race", but only for players?

So as not to have to replace the terminology that’s already in the books. Short of a new edition, there’s no changing the fact that the term “race” is used to refer to a certain package of PC features. What they can do though is stop using the term to refer to ethnic and cultural groups within the setting, the same way the game uses “class” to refer to a different package of PC features and not to in-fiction socioeconomic groups with shared interests and struggles.

 

[Hurin70]

I guess we duel to the death then, since you reject the premise that I might have a conversation.

I'm really not sure where you're getting the sense that I am trying to deny you a right to a conversation. We're just talking about the rules of a game, and we each have a right to an opinion. You yourself express strong opinions at times; don't we have the right to express ours too?

I'm not questioning your right to a conversation. But I am asking a purely logical question: how do you have both an 'Elf stronger than any Minotaur' and a 'Minotaur stronger than any Elf' in the same world without logical contradiction?

 

[Morrus]

I'm really not sure where you're getting the sense that I am trying to deny you a right to a conversation. We're just talking about the rules of a game, and we each have a right to an opinion. You yourself express strong opinions at times; don't we have the right to express ours too?

I'm not questioning your right to a conversation. But I am asking a purely logical question: how do you have both an 'Elf stronger than any Minotaur' and a 'Minotaur stronger than any Elf' in the same world without logical contradiction?

You don’t. It’s a silly question. I’m not going to continue with this line of conversation.