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]

Absolutely, which is what a lot of these discussions boil down to. "I just want to look like X, the rest is irrelevant."

Also, Hellish Rebuke.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I was going to lose at tennis anyway, so sure. Also instead of a tennis ball, we use a bowling ball slathered in mineral oil to make thins interesting.

...
I think internal consistency was omitted from this paragraph because I have no idea... I guess I've been insulted?

I don't know. I'm scared.

No absolutely. But don't try to say that lack of internal coherence is good because is the foundation of every game. Without it there is no game.

 

[Scribe]

Also, Hellish Rebuke.

Sure, but is that the appeal to the majority? I press X to doubt.

 

[Arial Black]

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.)

Coming from 3e, where there is no cap on ability scores, when I first read the 5e PHB where it said that the max score is 20, my first thought was, "Max of 20.....modified by racial bonuses, right? So max Str for half-orcs is 22, right?"

That would make sense. The strongest possible orc should be stronger than the strongest possible halfling, ignoring magic, because that makes sense.

I would be for such a change, but I'm stuck with a flat max 20 for every race.

The new approach, where all races are equally strong at 1st level, is the wrong direction. It moves away from coherence into a logical disconnect.

 

[Dausuul]

I cannot figure out for the life of me why have a floating ASI. It is the exact same things as increasing a point buy. I mean, if you attach it to something specific: race, class, background, culture, I get it. But if it is just floating, you do not need them at all.

If point buy were the default, and 5E were being built from the ground up using the Tasha's model, this would be entirely correct* and I would expect to see no floating ASIs.

However, the official default method of stat generation in 5E is 4d6 drop lowest. It's easy to forget--myself, I haven't played in a group that rolled stats for at least 10 years, and I think it's a terrible system that should long ago have been excised from D&D. Nevertheless, point buy is technically an optional variant and rolling is the standard method presented in the Player's Handbook. "4d6 drop lowest" cannot be recalibrated as neatly as point buy.

On top of that, 5E was originally built around fixed bonuses, and the stat generation methods in the PHB reflect that. Switching to floating bonuses is simpler than modding each of the existing stat generation methods.

*Well, almost correct. The point buy system would have to be adjusted to allow a stat to go up to 17, and then you would have to decide how many points it costs to go from 15 to 16 and 16 to 17, and consider the possibility of a PC taking multiple 17s. It isn't literally the exact same thing. However, I don't believe any of that would pose a significant problem.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Absolutely, which is what a lot of these discussions boil down to. "I just want to look like X, the rest is irrelevant."

Where did somebody say that?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

"Okay DM, in your game world, what race is the strongest race that is allowed for PCs?"

"Among the playable races in my world, goliaths are the strongest."

"I want as strong a PC as I can, so I'll play a goliath. What bonus do I get to my Str score for being a goliath?"

"None. PC goliaths are no stronger or weaker than any other race. If you want to play the strongest fighty type that you can, best play a halfling; that Halfling Luck trait makes you a much better Str-based PC than any goliath."

Did you see where that stopped making sense there?

"I want as strong a PC as I can, so i'll play a goliath. What bonus do I get to my STR score for being a goliath?"

"Well, you get a +2 and a +1 to assign anyway you want to your character, so if you want to be a super strong Goliath I would recommend you put your 15 in STR and then put your +2 on top of that for a 17 total. Then, if you really want to be a burly type put your 14 in CON and put the +1 on top of that so you get a 15."

"Yea, I guess, but that seems kind of one-note. What if instead I wanted to be a goliath who is still strong, but is actually a super genius?"

"In that case put your 15 into INT, then put your +2 on top of that for a 17 INT. Second you could make your STR a 14, and with your +1 make that a 15STR. This makes your guy really smart but also pretty strong."

"You know what, maybe being super strong isn't that great if i'm a wizard. What if, instead I wanted to be super smart AND tough?"

"You can do that too. Put your 8 into the STR stat and don't add a bonus to it. This is going to make you weaker than even your average goliaths so you need to explain that somehow. Perhaps your have a long term injury that didn't heal correctly or maybe you were the runt, or maybe cursed by an evil hag. Then you can do the 15+2 for INT and 14+1 for CON. Or even if you want to balance the two do 15+1 and 14+2 and that way you have equally good smarts and toughness."

"Great, thats exactly the guy i'm picturing in my head."

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

I see them as largely the same thing: one is the cause, the other is the effect.

If, somehow, racial ASIs could be combined with other abilities that made it harder to optimize race/class combinations, I'd be all for it.

For example (this is bad, but will illustrate my point)


Now if I'm making a Wizard I might think, "Oooh....-1 on all my rolls, but Advantage on Concentration!"

Or if I'm making a rogue I might think, "Hmmm...-1 on all my rolls, but Sneak Attack with a Maul? Sign me up!"

I'd be totally onboard with that kind of race design. I just think it would be much, much harder to give every class one (and only one) ability that maximized class-specific synergy, than to give all of them abilities which minimized class synergy.

I believe that you are true when you say that you are tired of seeing the same class/race combination. But removing ASI you risk to throw away the baby with the dirt water. Until the game is based on some assumption, it is inevitable that goliath will be stronger than halfling. And to have more variance you sacrify logic? Is this I don't accept. Too much price to pay for me.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Good catch: I just checked, and it talks instead about confidence, eloquence, and leadership.

So I guess the answer then is no, the quote about Elven beauty doesn't bother me at all now, since it has no mechanical effect.

So, wait. If the descriptive fluff doesn't correlate to one of the six attributes, it's ok for there to be no mechanical effect?

Because....it would only confuse new players if it did correlate to one of the six attributes? But otherwise it would make perfect sense?

I'm confused.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure, but is that the appeal to the majority? I press X to doubt.

Paladin.

With a Hellish Rebuke.

How can you not love that. I actually played a 4e Warlord with this set-up and it was amazing. She was a sweet as pie cheerleader type... until something her glorious cherry-red complexion. Then was the time for suffering. Then did she become their sadness.