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."

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

That is not great. That is the other thing. The thing that is the polar opposite of great.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Even if the halfling and Golaith have equal Strength scores, the Goliath is still stronger by other metrics (eg a Strength contest to see how much they can lift) because he has Powerful Build.

This is the problem with size. You either represent it mechanically some way or you don't represent it all. And if you don't represent it at all, then you take away a lot of the fun of playing it.

Counterpoint: using the Strength score (as it works in 5e) as a way to represent size is a really bad idea.

The entire range of strength scores available to any being in the universe that can move is 1-30. And humans, with no magic involved, take up at least the 3-18 part of that range.

So, Godzilla, Super Dimensional Fortress Macross, Unicron (a planet), Galactus the Planet-Eater, or Kord (the physical embodiment of the very concept of strength) cannot, under these rules, be twice as strong as a human could possibly be, nor can he be more than three times as strong as an average dude.

Put another way: if the DC for a strength check is 12 to 15, literally any being in the universe can succeed or fail. Ergo: the ability to lift an object cannot reasonably be controlled by one's strength score alone, because you'd have a size of rock that an aphid could lift but Superman might fail to lift.

Strength works fine if it measure how strong you are for a creature your size, but size need to be covered by a separate stat (or whatever rule). Alternatively you could change the rules for how the Strength ability score works to make it different from all the other scores.

(Note that all the other ability scores work well enough under a human scale - something might be smarter than a human, but we don't need to model anything on a scale that doesn't work for humans.)

 

[Scott Christian]

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

Here is what I said:

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.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

I agree with you that alignment and other cultural factors should not be limited like they were. There is nothing in, say, orc genetics that makes them evil. Or good.

But there are physiological differences. Having no mechanical difference between weighing 30lbs and weighing 600lbs divorces the game from any sense of realism.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

"Has to be reflected somehow". Er, you're going to "have to" back that up with an actual logical argument, as you're claiming it is as a matter of fact, a necessity, rather than something you'd prefer.

D&D hates realism. It loves abstraction. Nothing about D&D is realistic. It is one the least realistic RPGs in gaming history. HP are a bizarre and completely unrealistic thing. Levels are an insane concept, demented. The d20-based combat and skills frequently produce results that one really struggles to make any sense of, as do things like the complete of a CdG in 5E or the way people can't be one-shot if they have enough HP.

D&D is so abstracted and bizarre, that ultimately, it has more in common with Apocalypse World (particularly Dungeon World, of course) than, say, Rolemaster or GURPS or other more simulationist-oriented RPGs.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Has it long bothered you that the PHB says this:

elves appear hauntingly beautiful to humans and members of many other races.

....but there's no mechanics to support this?

(And that's the first example I found in approx 20 seconds of looking...)

 

[Hurin70]

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.

Did you miss the part where I explained why this is incorrect?

In 5e up to Tasha's, a Half-Orc started the game with an inherent Strength bonus, which ensured the strongest starting Orc was stronger than the Strongest starting Elf, and the Orc reached maximum Strength before the Elf. So it was still fair to say that Orcs were strong.

The fact that there were inconsistencies in previous editions, with words not matching texts, doesn't justify inconsistencies in future editions. The fact that your software has a bug now doesn't mean you should keep the bug in future editions.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Sure they are. Their hardiness is just reflected in their resistance to poison damage, and for hill dwarves, their increased hit points. If it’s strongly felt that more features are needed to sufficiently reflect their hardiness, I’m happy to entertain discussion of what non-ability score features might do that.

--Hill Dwarves are known for their 'deep intuition'. Yeah, not really any more.

Yeah, fair. Maybe they should gain proficiency in Insight or something.

Elves
--Elves have 'otherworldly grace'. Again, not really.

I’m not convinced “otherworldly grace” translates to dexterity, I generally take it to mean they’re really pretty. But again, I’m happy to have a discussion about what features they might gain to emphasize their gracefulness in place of a Dex bonus.

--Wood Elves have 'keen senses and intuition'. Nope.

Um, Keen Senses is literally the name of one of their features.

--High Elves have 'keen minds'. Not any keener than an Orc.

Sure they do, they start with an Intelligence-based cantrip and an extra language.

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

That’s just hyperbole. Ability scores are not the only way to represent these characteristics mechanically, and in fact, they are the least interesting and least effective way to do so.

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.

Again, the “separate race from culture” issue is at best tangentially related to the “remove fixed racial ASIs” issue.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But there are physiological differences. Having no mechanical difference between weighing 30lbs and weighing 600lbs divorces the game from any sense of realism.

Ok, but that's always been an issue in D&D, a giant (no pun intended!) issue.

D&D is not a system that makes any significant attempt at realism. It is a system that is extremely abstract. The reason things like Rolemaster exist is to provide less-abstract, more simulationist approaches to rules-heavy fantasy role-playing. If this is a priority for you - D&D has always been the wrong system. If this small change with ASIs is the "straw that breaks the camel's back", well, it was very close to breaking already, wasn't it?

 

[Scott Christian]

I agree with you that alignment and other cultural factors should not be limited like they were. There is nothing in, say, orc genetics that makes them evil. Or good.

But there are physiological differences. Having no mechanical difference between weighing 30lbs and weighing 600lbs divorces the game from any sense of realism.

Uh oh, you used the "R" word. Get your shield out and get ready for the onslaught.

I will try to predict it now:

Games with flying dragons...