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]

Is that any different than your game being ruined because you have a 15 strength instead of a 16?

What spoils my game is always seeing the same race/class combinations.

But, that aside, yes. I do think that what I wrote...

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?

...is substantively different than being -1 on all of your primary rolls for 8-12 levels, and then being one feat short after that.

 

[Arial Black]

Again: these are PC creation rules. PCs are, to put it nicely: freaks.

There's no reason a halfling PC shouldn't be Swolecules, Halfling demigod of Buffness while statted halflings aren't.

Except because elephants and mice or something. Are there even statted mice in 5e?

Why is it fair that 1st level halflings can be so much stronger than average halflings, but goliaths are not allowed to be an equal amount stronger than average goliaths?

I don't think it's unfair that things make sense.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I wouldn't say 'bothers', because appearance has no mechanical effect. But I would say that it would be better (more accurate) to not talk of races as 'hauntingly beautiful' if they have the exact same Charisma bonus as every other race.

No book hand, but does the 5e PHB actually attribute "physical beauty" to Charisma as a stat anymore? I would be surprised if it did since Charisma and Beauty have been divorced since the 1e days of the Comeliness stat.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Both are frequent excuses to make the game less fun for people like me?

I'm sorry. If you like games where internal coherence in rules is broken you are welcome. The next time we play tennis togheter, I'll first say you that the net is 1 meter high but when it's my turn the net magically go to ground. It's ok for you?
Internal coherence is actually funny and a credible world enhance the suspension of disbelief. This is how it works normally. I don't want to say you are not normal, of course. But try not to push too much your position because it can be easily became paradoxical.

 

[Guest 6801328]

There is no evidence in the rules that PC are special in this sense.

Well, a commoner's stats would be a statistical outlier regardless of which of the official stat generation methods you used. So, yes, PCs are special in this sense.

Apes has 16 instead of 10 exactly for the same reason Orc has +2 STR. And is perfectly coherent with the assumption of the physics of the game world. So, again: why ASI is bad?

Because it tends to cause people to pick the same race/class combinations. Sorry if you missed that upthread.

 

[Scott Christian]

I know it's easier to denigrate something if you simplify it to ridiculous statements, but you seem smarter than that. I suppose some people in favor of floating initial ASIs might be turning a blind eye to how that approach affects other aspects of chargen, but to say the entire argument is focused on just one thing and completely ignores everything else...well, I know for a fact that's not the case.

I just want to avoid shoehorning things in to suit our arguments here.

Fair enough. I'll choose my words more carefully.

In an earlier post I recapped the floating ASI position and was told it was correct. So I took it too far when I stated people turn a blind eye to all other things. But it does seem to me that some leave the other variables out of the equation during large sections of their argument. That is more what I was trying to point out. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm sorry. If you like games where internal coherence in rules is broken you are welcome. The next time we play tennis togheter, I'll first say you that the net is 1 meter high but when it's my turn the net magically go to ground. It's ok for you?
Internal coherence is actually funny and a credible world enhance the suspension of disbelief. This is how it works normally. I don't want to say you are not normal, of course. But try not to push too much your position because it can be easily became paradoxical.

You keep using this phrase "internal coherence" but could you explain why racial ASIs are necessary for "internal coherence"?

 

[Scribe]

"Dwarves in general are hardy, but you can play what you want," is too far a reach for you?

If I may, the issue is instead.

"Both Player Characters who are an Elf or Dwarf or indeed anything, can be as hardy as any other Player Character." and it breaks the suspension of disbelief for some.

I would never think to myself, yes a Halfling should be as functionally strong (size, special rules, ASI) as a Goliath which also intends to be strong.

Essentially the Strongest Halfing PC should (in my mind only!) never be able to be as strong, as the Strongest Goliath PC.

I'm aware that as of 5e right now, 20 is the max, but I see this as a failing of the system as it is RIGHT NOW, being made even worse, for me, with Tasha's.

Again however, I forced sub-optimal/bad fun picks, on purpose, because thats the story I wanted to play out, so quite clearly i'm not the typical person being designed for by WotC, now, or later after this change goes 'official'.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Could you give an example so I can better understand what you mean?

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Yeah, that's my point! Chimps are physiologically stronger than humans!

In D&D, that would be represented as giving chimp PCs +2 Str. That would not mean that every chimp is stronger than every human, but it would mean that chimps as a race/species are stronger than humans.

Bingo! The mechanics work! They model (however abstractly and imperfectly) that chimps are indeed physiologically stronger than humans.

Making floating racial bonuses to ability scores means that no race is stronger or weaker on average than any other race. This fails! As a way to model the difference in races, this fails!

The fact that some races get +2 Str in no way means that PC are not unique!

It is extremely clear my friend. Extremely clear. Nobody can find reasonable arguments against this. But unfortunately...