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."

 

[Scott Christian]

If you are already playing previous editions, why are you playing 5E at all? Because to get to here, you've already travelled the long road up from OD&D wherein the game has already lost SO MUCH of its various "identities" along the way. The "identity" of 5E D&D is much, much different than the original "identity" of the original Dungeons & Dragons of Basic or even AD&D. But if you are happily playing 5E D&D... that tells me that all these little micro-rules that keep getting changed over the last 40 years perhaps aren't as integral to the game's "identity" as you really want us to think.

I mean let's get real here... racial bonuses to ability scores CAN'T be integral to the identity of D&D, because they got ADDED to D&D several editions down the line. And if the changeover from demi-human ability score minimums and maximums INTO ability score bonuses/penalties didn't "kill" D&D identity... changing which bonuses demi-humans get most certainly won't either. And trying to claim otherwise is on its face ridiculous.

I would argue it hasn't lost very much identity.

D&D is built on different races and different classes and lots of different monsters. That is what the game is and has always been.

You can debate the little things, like an old school paladin used to lose their powers if they veered from lawful good or the old school sylvan elf could only have a 17 constitution. But, it changes little in the perception that a paladin now is similar to a paladin then, and a sylvan elf now is similar to a sylvan elf then.

I guess what I am saying is the ambiance hasn't changed. It is still distinct classes, distinct races and distinct monsters.

People fret when the distinctions disappear.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually, the funny thing, according to the PHB, you can still have play your orc wizard with a high intelligence too. In fact, they can be as smart as any high elf wizard or gnome wizard out there. So there is no need to change anything.

That is exactly correct. For us current players, we didn't need what was originally printed in the PHB, we didn't need the "permission" that Tasha's Cauldron gave us to change it, and we don't need any further documents to make this stuff however it should be.

Which means only one thing.

These changes are purely for FUTURE PLAYERS. Players who will pick up D&D for the first time and look at this stuff. And it is for them that WotC is trying to change the conversation. They want future players to not see that if you wish to play an orc you are by default stupider than other characters (even if by spending Point Buy points you could make one that was smart). Because while they have no idea what anyone might know about the politics regarding Tolkien and his reasons/descriptions of the orc race and whatever correlation/causation might be there for fantasy races vs real races the general public might have... they are just doing what they feel is morally the right thing to do, just in case. They want the game to be inviting to everybody if they can.

Which means that everybody who is saying "Naw! It doesn't matter! Leave it alone!" is just giving a potential bad look. Which if (general) you are okay with, then more power to you... but you can't expect WotC to go along with it if they don't agree.

 

[Scott Christian]

Which means that everybody who is saying "Naw! It doesn't matter! Leave it alone!" is just giving a potential bad look. Which if (general) you are okay with, then more power to you... but you can't expect WotC to go along with it if they don't agree.

I wouldn't necessarily say bad look from that side. I would say traditionalist. Just my opinion though. I do understand (after seeing how some have argued) that it could be looked at as bad. But, the overall arguments I have seen, including ones I even made, seem to come from a good place and still be inviting.

There is a side of me that believes WotC is plotting (for good or bad is perspective). Not necessarily to be more inclusive for future players, but to align things; like MtG, the possible upcoming D&D show, etc. I feel like that is what companies do:

"Let's synergize everyone! Let's make sure this can melt into that, and this aligns with this."

Then, once that is done, it can go two ways: they grow or downsize because they have pooled things together.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

My 2 cents:

• describe ASI as Cultural is wrong, at least for initial STR, DEX and CON both in the game that out of it.
• remove ASI related to race is not wrong nor right, it is simply remove genetic differences between races.
• Definition of INT, WIS and CHA are problematic so it could be legitimate to avoid a suggested connection between them and genetics. But for DEX, STR and CON there is absolute evidence that genetic is involved, so why ignore it? It is a law of nature so why remove it? More, we are not talking about Afroamericans compared to white people, we are talking about generic Orcs compared to generic Halfling. It is extremely hard to me to accept that the medium halfling is as strong as the medium orc.
• Even with ASI, a single Orc can be weaker than a single Halfling. But in statistic terms this is only less probable. Where's the scandal? i don't know.
• Negate this issues is so poorly justifiable in terms of real world knowledge and common sense and request a much bigger effort in terms of suspension of disbelief, that appears clear the political aspect of this choice.
• If there were scientific or philosophical reason, we have seen the same choice in all the monster manual: dragons that cannot bite even if their teeth are 2 meters long, creatures with long fangs deprived of their claw attack as orc that are not stronger than human even if depicted as muscled and 2 meters tall.
• For me is clear that WOTC feels embarassed for the presence of the word RACE in the game, and knowing that remove it could be too difficult, is trying to empty it of meaning by eliminating all the implications it could have in game mechanics in terms of differentiation between characters.
• Do it for political reason, well, for my intelligence it is offensive , but this is a personal feel that I can easily cope with, don't pretend to be the same for all.

So conclusion: I don't like political choices in a game. If this choices end up in create paradoxical situation that make it more difficult to suspend my disbelief, this upsets me and the game (as it is) is less enjoyable.
Sure I can house rule it. I can house rule as far as I want, at least to the point where is easier to change game at all.

I hope I haven't broken any forum rules with this post.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Reinforcing a point I made earlier, the previous three posters all seem to believe that the real reason for eliminating ASIs is for "inclusivity" or "politics" or something of that nature.

 

[Hurin70]

Perhaps my greatest problem with the end of assigned ASI's is that it breaks the connection between the description of the race and its actual mechanical benefits.

Here for example are some of the things that the PHB says about Dwarves:

--It says that they are 'hardy'. But they're really no more 'hardy' than any other race now, at least in terms of their stats.
--Dwarves are 'solid and enduring like the mountains'. No, not any more than any other race.
--Hill Dwarves are known for their 'deep intuition'. Yeah, not really any more.

Elves
--Elves have 'otherworldly grace'. Again, not really.
--Wood Elves have 'keen senses and intuition'. Nope.
--High Elves have 'keen minds'. Not any keener than an Orc.

And you could go on and on like this. There's no connection anymore between the description/lore and the stats.

If this is D&D, then stats are much better in Rolemaster now. There, Race is nature, and culture is nurture. Race therefore affects stats and who gets Darkvision or Flying. Culture affects learned behavior like skills/proficiencies. That makes more sense to me. Just my opinion of course.

 

[ART!]

The dhampir advantage on death saves is kind of insane. I mean, it "makes sense" but that seems pretty OP to me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The changes seem sound, though suggesting ASIs and languages (where relevant) would be more sensible than just not having them at all. Alignment suggestions can DIAF.

This actually expands what D&D can do with races though, well, it actually puts it back to being a sort of 3E thing, which had a broader array of "things you could be" than 4E/5E.

Perhaps my greatest problem with the end of assigned ASI's is that it breaks the connection between the description of the race and its actual mechanical benefits.

Here for example are some of the things that the PHB says about Dwarves:

--It says that they are 'hardy'. But they're really no more 'hardy' than any other race now, at least in terms of their stats.
--Dwarves are 'solid and enduring like the mountains'. No, not any more than any other race.
--Hill Dwarves are known for their 'deep intuition'. Yeah, not really any more.

Elves
--Elves have 'otherworldly grace'. Again, not really.
--High Elves have 'keen minds'. Not any keener than an Orc, really.

And you could go on and on like this. There's no connection anymore between the description/lore and the stats.

Yeah that ship sailed in 3E, mate. Sorry.

In 1E and 2E, where races had minimum stats, you could perhaps, just about argue that as valid. Elves had a certain amount of Dex, Dwarves a certain amount of Con, etc. But 2E was the last edition where that was true (IIRC, I think it was 2E not 1E that had that last).

So that's no longer a valid argument, and hasn't been for - oh my god I'm old - 20 years.

The dhampir advantage on death saves is kind of insane. I mean, it "makes sense" but that seems pretty OP to me.

Nah. If you're making Death Saves, you're already stuffed and mounted. It's something that only comes into play when you're losing hard.

Plus, there's some class or something that already has it - I can't remember what, but I've seen it in play, and it was kind of a joke. Nine times out of ten, the PC makes one Death Save before the others have used something to get them some HP so they're back on their feet.

 

[Hurin70]

Yeah that ship sailed in 3E, mate. Sorry.

The ship is still in the port of Rolemaster and other systems, so it can be done.

And until these changes it was true in D&D still, at least at character creation, where the strongest Orc was still a bit stronger than the strongest Elf. The current changes just cut the last cords connecting the words in the text from the numbers.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Reinforcing a point I made earlier, the previous three posters all seem to believe that the real reason for eliminating ASIs is for "inclusivity" or "politics" or something of that nature.

And you seem to believe that the real reason to remove "medium orc is stronger than medium halfling" is for what?

For realism? i doubt it giving the origin of the halflings (hobbit) and an evident difference in physical complexion.

To give DM an opportunity to build a world in which the more little is the creature the more is stronger?

To what reason, giving the fact that assume it as political is the only thing the Occam Razor and the timing of the choice in relation to real world cultural events suggests?