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."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Once ASI is gone, then the tide will shift to something else that doesn't allow them to be as good. Player A who chose this race can never be as good as player B who chose a different race at the start of the game. That is the end goal.

It is a paved road, make things easier. Because we all know by level 12, stats can be equalized. So it is: when I create my character, I want to be not have my attribute hindered by my racial choice. To go back to my knob example, basically, the knob needs to be removed. Stripped from the board.

Of course, when this happens (to answer your question), someone else is gonna only look at another single knob to turn and say: "Hey, that's not fair. This elf gets all his HP back in 4 hours and I need to rest for 8!" Then the argument starts all over again because someone will want the four hour rule with their dragonborn. Rinse and repeat.

The entire argument against ASIs is a matter of starting out equally, yet turns a blind eye to all the other things that are not "equal" or added to the equation during character creation.

You're right. Getting rid of racial ASIs leads inevitably to communism. Why couldn't I see that before?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

This is spot on. Of course, it hinges on the premise that +1 is greater than everything else. There are many in here that do not believe it is. Which is why it is so easy to question why you want them smaller and less obvious. The natural consequence of things being "smaller and less obvious" implies they are similar. Which is worrisome to those that do not want to lose the distinctiveness of races.

 

[Guest 6801328]

First, what the heck is a loxodon and why is it so badly designed?

Second, the new system of totally floating racial bonuses takes away that abstract way to represent these physiological differences, but does not replace them with race specific equivalents that don't involve ability scores, leaving nothing. Not every race which currently has +2 Str has Powerful Build, and didn't need to because it already has its power modelled by +2 Str!

Third, the game doesn't need to be totally simulationist in order to reflect these differences. Str +2 may not be enough to be simulationist, but it is enough to represent greater strength.

"It's a mouse! Run for your lives!"

"Mice aren't strong."

"That mouse might be as strong as an elephant! You don't know its life choices!"

In RPGs we suspend our disbelief. We can do this, not because we believe minotaurs exist, but because that we can work out that if they existed then they would be stronger than mice.

If the game world has no connection between concept and game mechanics, how can the players make decisions for their characters? In real life we make decisions based on a mental model of how the world works. We do the same when we play D&D. But if the D&D world makes sense (elephants are stronger than mice) then when the DM tells us that an elephant (or a mouse) is charging toward us, we can make a sensible choice about how to react. But if the world does not make sense (bodybuilding mice and bookworm elephants with less strength) then how would we judge our responses?

Role-playing in a world divorced from realism would have the decisions of players being meaningless.

So let me get this straight: even when just about every Dwarf in the world that you encounter is strong and tough, your suspension of disbelief is shattered simply because when you roll a Dwarf PC, you are given the option of putting your +2/+1, for that one specific Dwarf, into any of the six attributes?

Wow. That sucks.

 

[Arial Black]

Let's start with 'less' HP and shudder in horror at trying to play a good combat halfling from there.

That's not a problem. If your combat-focussed PC of whatever race has poor hit points, then avoid melee and go ranged instead.

D&D is nowhere near as unfair as reality. In D&D, you might not get +2 Str but you can get +2 Dex instead. You can easily play a Dex-based combat PC who is just as effective as a Str-based combat PC.

If you want to play a Str based combat PC of a race that does not have a bonus to Str, you chose that! Nobody forced you!

And such a choice, like every choice in the game, comes with benefits and drawbacks, even if the drawback is that it wasn't a benefit that you did not choose.

Right now I'm building a 1st level PC for Dragon Heist. I'm playing a human rogue with Dex and Cha of 16, and Str and Con of 8, going to choose Swashbuckler at 3rd level.

What? Con 8 on a melee rogue? Am I out of my mind?

It's my choice. I'm going to have to play to my ahem strengths and protect my weaknesses. Just like every PC ever!

 

[Vaalingrade]

My problem is not that I think elephants can't be smart.

The problem is that elephants cannot fail to be stronger than a mouse and the new system doesn't even reflect that in the smallest way.

And I think it's awesome because we're no longer punching the players of Mouse Barbarians or elephant archers in the face for no reason that has value in a fantasy game.

I warm myself in the heat of simulationism burning and the sounds of selective verisimilitude being rent asunder is my magnum opus.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is spot on. Of course, it hinges on the premise that +1 is greater than everything else.

Nope. It hinges on the premise that lots of people seem to believe that +1 is big enough to matter, and act accordingly.

There are many in here that do not believe it is. Which is why it is so easy to question why you want them smaller and less obvious. The natural consequence of things being "smaller and less obvious" implies they are similar. Which is worrisome to those that do not want to lose the distinctiveness of races.

"Smaller and less obvious" in the sense of how strongly it favors certain classes over others. Dwarven Resilience is not a ribbon: it's a really useful ability that can save the character. And it's great for all classes, which is the critical difference between it and specific ASIs.

Now, somebody might have an argument for why it's even better for some classes. For example, you might say that a rogue is more likely to get poisoned, because it's their job to open locks, and sometimes locks are trapped with poison. But that's a pretty marginal difference.

 

[Faolyn]

First, what the heck is a loxodon and why is it so badly designed?

Elephant-folk.

"It's a mouse! Run for your lives!"

"Mice aren't strong."

"That mouse might be as strong as an elephant! You don't know its life choices!"

In RPGs we suspend our disbelief. We can do this, not because we believe minotaurs exist, but because that we can work out that if they existed then they would be stronger than mice.

This is when I like to point out that in the real world, chimpanzees, despite being generally smaller and lighter than humans, a lot stronger than us (depending on the source, from half-again as strong to four times as strong), because of how their muscles are built and attached to their bones. Now imagine a chimp that's decided to work out.

And as I and others have noted, the player characters are unique or at least pretty rare, the vast majority of NPC mice--or halflings or humans--are going to be weaker than the average minotaur, and by the rules, all races have a maximum of 20 Strength anyway so it doesn't matter. If a mouse gets up high enough in level, or gets the right magical equipment, or gets a wish, if could have a Strength of 20.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's not a problem. If your combat-focussed PC of whatever race has poor hit points, then avoid melee and go ranged instead.

No, see that is exactly the problem.

I do not want to play a ranged warrior. I want to play a halfling with a bigass hammer and no regard for human safety or decency. And I want to be mechanically competent at it.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I have a hard time believing that a group would not come along and say, why is the halfling better than the orc at being a (we'll say samurai type of fighter). Within no time, it would be contested as to why the orc can't learn samurai skills as readily or easily as a halfling. It only boils down to two things:

• I want everyone on the same playing field (only at the beginning apparently)
• I want it easier

 

[teitan]

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.

Yeah but usually it just shows people looking for something that might not be there. Projection is very much a thing and I think people should follow the advice of a certain Jewish man from Nazareth: let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

also, if that is all you got out of my post... it’s a sad thing.