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]

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.

Because if you did that then Goliaths would have a starting strength so high that it would be a trap option for anybody wanting to play a strength-based melee fighter.

 

[ART!]

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.

I think this is actually an argument in favor of giving chimpanzees advantage on Strength checks, not giving them +2 STR. That would better represent that chimps are generally going to do better at STR things, but not superhumanly so. A +2 allows for a score above 20 (i.e. superhuman), whereas advantage just means they'll do well more often than humans (who don't have a feat or magic whatever that gives them advantage on STR checks).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm seeing responses ranging from "cautiously optimistic" to "absolutely enthusiastic" from the creators I'm following on social media; from the D&D hype-men/shills, yes, but also from some of WotC's fiercest critics on this issue. A lot of these people were let down by Tasha's minimal treatment of the subject, and at the very least are happy that WotC is presenting a more coherent and less vague direction that they're planning to move in.

As long as there are roughly equal numbers of people shouting Tasha's "Went too far!" as those complaining it "Didn't go far enough!", I reckon they did about right.

How would you model in game mechanics the impact of weighing 600lbs instead of weighing 30lbs on damage inflicted with physical attacks?

If the realistic way of modelling the impact of weighing 160lbs instead of weighing 140lbs would be with a +4 Str bonus, what bonus would you use to model in game mechanics the impact of weighing 600lbs instead of weighing 30lbs?

Yes, but when you choose, for example, whether to increase your Strength score or take the Great Weapon Master Feat, you’re choosing between two things that make you a better Fighter in different ways. When you choose to take the Actor Feat instead of either, you are choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, in order to get something else you want. When you choose to play any race that doesn’t grant a bonus to strength though? You’re just stuck with being a worse fighter.

I have to say: I believe this to be generally false.
Outside of outright balance issues, when you make a non-minmaxed choice, you are always "choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, in order to get something else you want." This holds true whether picking a non-optimal feat, or a non-optimal race.

Characterising one choice as giving up some mechanical combat effectiveness for something else you value a little more and the other as giving up some mechanical combat effectiveness for nothing is neither accurate nor honest.

When you choose to pick a race that does not give you a +2 bonus to Strength, you are choosing to accept being worse at being a fighter, but presumably you are getting something else you want: an equivalent bonus or ability elsewhere. Just like choosing between the GWM and Actor feats.

Your only recourse, if you want to be an effective fighter, is to play a member of a narrow subset of races that give you a bonus to Strength, and maybe none of those races interest you. Well, too bad. Pick one or suck it up.

Yeah. Still not a fan of the "If you want to be an effective person, you need X" sentiment. Whether X is a specific qualification, ability bonus, or BMI score.

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.

The changes made in Tasha's and continued in the UA have not changed the fact that you cannot do this. They have only allowed you to be a little less mechanically incompetent at it. Even a 'roid-crazed chimpanzee on bad acid halfling is still getting disadvantage on attacks with a bigass hammer.

 

[Scribe]

Because if you did that then Goliaths would have a starting strength so high that it would be a trap option for anybody wanting to play a strength-based melee fighter.

From a min/max perspective, yes.

 

[Arial Black]

It's already been done. The stat block for Ape (sorry, no Chimp) gives them a 16 Strength. The stat block for Commoner gives them a 10 Strength. No ASIs needed.



Not all humans (or dwarves, or chimpanzees) are player characters. In fact, very, very, very few of them are.

It's like your saying that choosing to play a strong race should have no bearing at all on the Str of your PC.

Like a goliath PC, just because they are a PC, isn't really a goliath.

For me, player character dwarves (or whatever) are still dwarves. Your attitude (and that rule) suggests that player character dwarves are not dwarves.

 

[Scott Christian]

As has been explained many times, it's not about the math it's about the perception. The reality remains that players tend to only choose races that let them start with a 16 in their primary stat. D&DBeyond data bears this out.

Want to go out and persuade the entire D&D community that they should stop doing this? Be my guest.

As has been explained many times, it is the perception that the +1 is more important that leads others to a less worn path. You seem to understand the ASI side perfectly. You are spot on - it is the perception, not the actual statistics, that makes people think their character stronger or weaker. But you don't seem to want to view it from the other side. It is a two lane road.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes... because the stat block gives them a +2 Con. That's what makes them hardier on average. That's the mechanic.

This statement probably boils down the difference of opinion here. The Monster Manual statblock for a creature doesn't have a +X bonus for a stat, it just has a number that has been assigned to it.

A base orc has a 16STR in the Monster Manual. It doesn't have a 10STR+6STR Racial Bonus. If you wanted to play an orc and used the rules from Volo's, the writeup for an orc PC has a +2STR modifier, not a +6STR as your logic is saying is the case.

Therefore, what people are saying is.....the Monster Manual stats give an indication on what the average stat of a race is going to be when you take the population as a whole(16 for an orc, 10 for a human) however the PC Creation rules shouldn't include bonuses because PC Creation rules do not represent "normal" members of the race and should allow maximum leeway to create the character you want to play.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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

I may regret wading into this conversation...

Not this just reason, but other reasons as well. Reasons that limit you to play archetypes you want. Whenever we talk about getting rid of racial modifiers, there are always comments about "but halflings shouldn't be that strong! All dwarves are extra healthy!" But no one talks about the other side of the argument. Not just as you say (we end up with the same race/class combinations all the freaking time), but this as well:

If the lowest score I can possibly get in ability is a 10 (because the racial bonus gives a +2), that means as a PC, I can never have that as a weak area. Strengths aren't the only thing that helps flesh our our archetypes. Weaknesses also do that, and are just as important. Maybe I want to play a PC who is crude, rude, and bears horrific scars, and overall is not charismatic at all. Well, if I play a half elf, or tiefling, or other CHA bonuses race, I guess I can't really do that and have the mechanics support it.

Or maybe I want to play a minotaur/goliath/etc who was a runt, but because of that, relied on their intelligence and cunning to survive growing up. With racial modifiers, can't really do that. Worst STR I could have is a 10 (assuming array or point buy)

PCs are supposed to be the exception. Therefore, they should be able to be created with any combination of racial adjustments. Not only to avoid the stereotypical frequent race/class combos, but to allow archetypes to be achieved and supported mechanically.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't want players, especially new players, to get confused when they read the plain language description of a race only to find that the mechanics don't actually represent that description at all.

I'll just note that I never give much weight to this claim. It never seems to appear as a first argument. It only appears after other efforts have failed.

In this particular case, I have never, not once, heard a player ask or complain about these sorts of disconnects. As I said, I just chose one example but the book is full of them. And still, never has a player said, "Hey...it says here that elves have unearthly beauty. How is that reflected in the mechanics?"

You clearly prefer to keep racial ASIs, for whatever reason. I have a really hard time believing this is really motivated by a concern for newbies.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

It's fair in the sense that PCs can't go above 20 in any stat. But that has nothing to do with racial bonus or stats and has everything to do with blanket game rules.

Now, I could see a house rule that says each race has one stat they can go to 22 in without resorting to magic or epic boons. Goliaths, orcs, minotaurs, and githyanki (who despite being described as slender, also get +2 Str), that stat is Str, and for halflings and other small, agile guys, that stat is Dex. And dwarfs can reach 22 in Con. And I think that as long as you stay away from allowing super-Int or Wis, this shouldn't be as much of a problem. Depending on your point of view, allowing a Cha of 22 could represent an innate magical "animal magnetism" or "fae charm" instead of "this race is prettier or more personable," but I could also see it as being as potentially bad as Int or Wis, so either way. Yes, I know that this harkens back to the stat maximums of 1e, but with a 20-max for everyone in all but one thing, I don't think it's as bad.

(Vhumans can pick their stat, and base humans can reach 21 in all stats.)