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."

 

[Dausuul]

If they want to realistically model physiological species differences without involving ability score bonuses, then something like this is the way to do it.

Nobody said anything about "realistic." I'd say that ship has sailed, except that would imply there was a time when it hadn't. That ship started its existence on the water and has never in the history of D&D made port.

D&D does not do realism. What it does is make gestures that suggest realism if you don't look too close, while also promoting fun gameplay. IMO, the ideal minotaur mechanics would make you feel that you were playing a hulking giant, without making your character (be it a barbarian or a wizard) less effective in its role than the other PCs at the table. It does not have to match the actual effects of being 8 feet tall and 600 pounds of beef.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why do you think using bold like that is a useful discussion tactic and not just a way to sound like Chandler from Friends on the internet? Or is Chandlerisation the goal here? Honest question, because I am seriously reading your posts in Chandler voice right now.

I actually thought of Linkara reading Frank Miller comics.

 

[Arial Black]

Why do you think using bold like that is a useful discussion tactic and not just a way to sound like Chandler from Friends on the internet? Or is Chandlerisation the goal here? Honest question, because I am seriously reading your posts in Chandler voice right now.

Good! It's working then!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They implied, especially me, that it could be one of the factors. (I actually implied that it was to build a more cohesive brand.)

Uhhhh, it seemed to be pretty much the main/only one being discussed, but okay.

Point is, why does it matter? To me it looks like it was an opportunity to resolve a whole lot of stuff and future-proof the mechanics and brand to some extent. Also race-based alignment (for example) has needed to DIAF for thirty years. When I started playing D&D in, again, in the '80s, people were saying racial alignments were dumb. It was not an unusual opinion. It's lingered on a sort of relic, but it serves no useful purpose.

 

[Hurin70]

Under the current system (before the Tasha's changes), Half-Orcs started the game stronger (higher max strength) and could reach maximum strength faster. This didn't mean the strongest Orc was stronger than the strongest Elf, of course, but at least it meant that Orcs were on average stronger, that the strongest starting Orc was stronger than the strongest starting Elf, and that the Orc reached maximum strength faster. You could with justification then describe Orcs as 'strong', as the PHB does. So no, the ship of 'ASI's tied to character descriptions' had not sailed till Tasha's left port. There was still a connection between the words and the numbers.

Anyone who says that in previous editions, the numbers were completely unconnected to the lore is being disingenuous. Yes, D&D made new races not tied to the lore. But Minotaurs got strength bonuses because they came from mythology that defined them as strong. Dwarves got Con bonuses because they came from lore (Tolkien) that described them as tough and hardy. Etc.

I am fine with using non-ASI means to represent racial differences. Rolemaster already does this in numerous ways, with racial feats (talents) such as Darkvision, with size rules (large size creatures like Trolls get more hit points and their attacks hit harder, while small size creatures like Halflings get fewer hit points and their attacks don't hit as hard). That's all great.

But if you remove the ASI's entirely, then you're going to need to go through the PHB and cut out all the words that no longer accurately reflect the mechanics. You can't any longer describe a Dwarf as 'hardy', because as a race they are no hardier than any other. The best you can say is that Hill Dwarves are tough; Mountain Dwarves aren't any tougher than Elves or Gnomes. You also can no longer describe Orcs as 'strong', because they are no stronger than any other race; the best you can say is that they have 'savage attacks'. But they are literally no stronger than any other race anymore.

That to me is a loss. I want to play in a world that is consonant with the lore; I want to play in a world where Minotaurs are stronger than Halflings, and Dwarves are tougher than Elves. I recognize your mileage may vary.

 

[Arial Black]

Nobody said anything about "realistic." I'd say that ship has sailed, except that would imply there was a time when it hadn't. That ship started its existence on the water and has never in the history of D&D made port.

D&D does not do realism. What it does is make gestures that suggest realism if you don't look too close, while also promoting fun gameplay. IMO, the ideal minotaur mechanics would make you feel that you were playing a hulking giant, without making your character (be it a barbarian or a wizard) less effective in its role than the other PCs at the table. It does not have to match the actual effects of being 8 feet tall and 600 pounds of beef.

I agree that it doesn't have to be a perfect match-D&D isn't capable of that-but it has to be reflected somehow.

I want a certain level of realism in my game. By that, I don't mean that magic should disappear; I mean that if these things existed, they would realistically have an effect. The game mechanics should model this meaningfully, even though they cannot model it perfectly.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have not seen that argued, and don't agree with it. I have seen arguments about how significant 5% is (including that +1 doesn't actually mean +5%: for example if you needed to roll a 19, and now you need a 18, that's actually a 50% increase in chance to succeed.)

Probability does not work like that and you know it. Yes, a 5% chance of success is actually increased by 100% if you suddenly make it a 10% chance of success. But we are not measuring the increase, we are measuring the probability of you rolling an 18, 19 or 20 for success vs rolling a 19 or 20 for success on a d20. You have an 5% chance of success, that's it. 3/20 versus 2/20.

It just baffles me how all the other things races bring to the table are discarded. Maybe because people keep expressing that a 5% increase is worth more than any other thing during character creation. (But strikingly enough, suddenly it doesn't seem to matter to the same people when characters level up?)

 

[Alzrius]

I actually thought of Linkara reading Frank Miller comics.

Now all I can think of are players who stick with humans for their PCs shouting "I AM A MAN!"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But if you remove the ASI's entirely, then you're going to need to go through the PHB and cut out all the words that no longer accurately reflect the mechanics. You can't any longer describe a Dwarf as 'hardy', because as a race they are no hardier than any other. The best you can say is that Hill Dwarves are tough; Mountain Dwarves aren't any tougher than Elves or Gnomes. You also can no longer describe Orcs as 'strong', because they are no stronger than any other race; the best you can say is that they have 'savage attacks'. But they are literally no stronger than any other race.

That to me is a loss. I recognize your mileage may vary.

No.

If you "have to" do that with this approach, you have the current and all approaches back to and including 3E, because it's always been false since the removed minimum stats. That ship has sailed. It sailed in 3E. Now if you want to say 3E, 4E, 5E, all need to remove that lingo, I can support that. Obviously it won't happen, but it makes sense.

But to claim only the new system would? Ridiculous.

People can still choose to embody the archetypical stats of their race. Most probably will. It's just not required that they put their bonuses there. Right now, you can have a Dwarf with 5 CON after mods. Any toughness they have is represented through other means - non-ASI means.

It's fine for you to not love the new approach. I didn't love the old approach, but I still played D&D for 30-odd years. But this is not a logical argument you are making.

 

[Scott Christian]

But the relevant truth is not whether or not the +1 matters, or how much it matters, but simply that people believe it matters, and that affects the characters they are willing to play.

This is spot on. I agree 100%.

I would add that it is also a two lane road. It allows people to take the road least travelled to see where it leads, which is just as important as travelling down the road most travelled.