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."

 

[Mind of tempest]

Upthread somebody referred to "perfect being the enemy of good" and I think that applies to race balancing, too. For example, it is argued that the "Lucky" feat is better for classes that make more attack rolls (vs. making attacks that require saving throws, or do a lot of healing, for example.)

But given that the goal is to make players feel less constrained in what race/class combinations they choose, what we are going for is reducing the class bias in race design. Sure, the theorycrafters and white room optimizers will ALWAYS have an argument for why race A makes a better fighter (or whatever) than race B, but the goal is not to eliminate those differences, but to make them smaller and less obvious than an across-the-board +1 on your primary skills.

so the real question is what would the phb races get as they would now be much weaker.

 

[Faolyn]

Only thing I just realized that I forgot.

I really wish there more senses/vison options than darkvision.

Agreed. I'd like to bring back low-light vision. This would either let you see in dim light as if it were bright light (to 30', 60', whatever) or it would effectively double the radius of whatever light source you have with you, but you'd have no ability to see in total darkness. The former would be easier, the latter would be more realistic.

Honestly, I'd up with removing darkvision entirely, except for truly subterranean species, like drow and duergar (not typical dwarfs) and some of the most magical species, like the dhampir and reborn from this UA.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You know, I've actually been doing work on my own game and trying to make races more universally playable and my solution's been to give them powers like dragon breath or Lucky that are class agnostic and any character can find use busting them out.

 

[Mind of tempest]

You know, I've actually been doing work on my own game and trying to make races more universally playable and my solution's been to give them powers like dragon breath or Lucky that are class agnostic and any character can find use busting them out.

interesting you got any other ideas for them?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean in a world where instead of ASI, we get more rules like Savage Attacks. Things which would push a specific race/heritage/linage towards a more limited role, but not force one.

Not flat out bad, but sub-optimal if looked at from a pure min/max perspective.

I mean, you're discussing an entirely theoretical 6th edition-type situation.

Because it's entirely theoretical, it's hard to answer in any useful way, because they could do anything from completely invalidating certain races in combat, to a fairly decent balance job where some were ahead.

What I can discuss more usefully is 5E - right now, by removing racial ASIs, we move closer to a "fairly decent balance job". As an aside, even without removing ASIs, Goliaths were a mediocre choice for a Fighter. Basically the +2 STR was the only non-aesthetic reason to really pick one. Does that mean they should be changed? Probably, in a future edition. How far? Well, not too far. The problem with racial ASIs was that the vast majority of rolls you make in D&D typically involve your primary stat, so a small difference to that stat mod adds up extremely fast. I don't think we should see to replicate that situation by giving a race an advantage that is so strong, it's the equivalent of a +1 on the majority of rolls they make.

 

[Scribe]

I answered a similar question earlier, and the short answer is “not really.” If you want to use race features to make halflings differently-good fighters than Goliaths and Half-orcs? Sure, that’s something I’m willing to discuss. But halflings just plain being worse fighters than Goliaths and Half-orcs? That’s gonna be a no from me.

And I think thats honestly how most (not I) feel. As @Elfcrusher noted, there will always be a min/max solution to any given system with combinations of race/class/role, whatever. Simply how it is.

Unless there is no meaningful difference in the baseline, at which point we get back to a point where why bother with race at all.

For me, I want some races better at other things, but as noted yesterday, I was more than happy to play a Tiefling with a level adjustment and -2 Cha penalty, and still try to force things as a Bard or a Paladin or whatever, because thats what I wanted to do at the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean in a world where instead of ASI, we get more rules like Savage Attacks. Things which would push a specific race/heritage/linage towards a more limited role, but not force one.

Not flat out bad, but sub-optimal if looked at from a pure min/max perspective.

Ah! Ok, in that case, sure. I think other comments have demonstrated how, in a world with floating ASIs, racial traits like lucky and nimble make the halfling fighter “differently good” from a Goliath or Half-orc fighter. If what you’re suggesting is more such traits to make the races feel suited to different roles, I’m in support of that.

 

[Faolyn]

When a party cleric turns undead, does that turn the vampiric character?

Yes. They count as undead as well as humanoids.

 

[Faolyn]

If you look at these examples and see racism you have a limited imagination at best and are quite possibly inclined to systemic racism at worst.

Shockingly enough, it's possible to see bigotry without being a bigot oneself. It means you grew up in the real world and have seen the different forms bigotry can take.

 

[Charlaquin]

And I think thats honestly how most (not I) feel. As @Elfcrusher noted, there will always be a min/max solution to any given system with combinations of race/class/role, whatever. Simply how it is.

Unless there is no meaningful difference in the baseline, at which point we get back to a point where why bother with race at all.

Yeah, I agree with @Elfcrusher on that. As long as there’s variation there will be optimal choices and suboptimal choices, even if the margins between them are very narrow. And I don’t want to eliminate variation between races. But, whether you agree that the difference made by +2 to a primary ability score is significant, it’s a fact that there is a very pervasive perception among players that it is a significant enough difference that people avoid playing certain race-class combos. And that’s something I think is worth addressing.