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."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you're going to make that patently silly argument, then D&D hasn't been D&D since at least 3rd edition. Possibly 2nd.

Also, didn’t ODND not even have racial stat mods? I’m not retro or old enough to know first hand, but that what I remember reading.

 

[Faolyn]

Apply a floating ASI to that example. The question arises, why would anyone choosing totem path of the eagle be anything other than a wood elf? There is no trade off. Just good heaped upon great.

As others have said, there's aesthetics in play. Some people really don't like elves; some people like other races; some people came up with a backstory that requires a specific, non-elf race.

 

[Faolyn]

But, the description is in the PC section of the rules, so it seems like it should apply to PCs.

I should point out that the description of both Rashamani and Turami humans in the human PC section of the rules describe them as "muscular," and base humans aren't strong, at least not in comparison to the rest of their stats.

 

[Arial Black]

the choices to which PCs are constrained or allowed does not need to reflect the larger truth of the game world

That's where you stop making sense.

"Here are the playable races in my campaign. Read about what they are like, and choose what you want to play."

But you want to divorce what your PC race is from the reality of what that race is.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Yeah, on a personal level I would use attributes as a cap, nothing more. Wouldn't even have their bonus apply to rolls. And race would have nothing to do with the caps. Race, culture, class and background would just grant skills and feats. Then every level you can choose to move up an attribute (raise the cap) or move up some skills (attacks would be a skill). So your 12 charisma dragonborn can only have a +1 in persuasion until they move their cap up. And since you can raise stuff every level, if you really wanted it, it wouldn't take long to achieve a better score.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Also, didn’t ODND not even have racial stat mods? I’m not retro or old enough to know first hand, but that what I remember reading.

Already covered upthread. No version of OD&D from 1974 up through 1996 gave standard elves, dwarves, and halflings racial ability score adjustments. All three of those races were on the same 3–18 spread as humans (and in the case of halflings, Strength was one of their prime requisite ability scores)!

The story changes for monstrous races from, e.g., PC1–4 and GAZ10. Many of these did have ability adjustments; but there was also a concerted effort in the late 80s to make more D&D material compatible with AD&D so that the books would sell better.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I will try.
Two sides: Floating ASIs and Racial ASIs.

Floating ASI: We do not want racial choices to alter our class choice. Or. We do not want to be hampered in our primary attribute because we choose to be a specific race. Or. We dislike seeing the same race/class combos always being played, and Racial ASI's are the primary promoter of this.
(I think that is correct. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

Racial ASI: We do not want the race's to lose their attribute distinctness. Or. We like seeing the same race/class combos. Or. We do want players to be hampered in their primary attribute when choosing a specific race.

(Optional) The reason why behind these is more interesting than what they are. For example, why would anyone like seeing the same race/class combos? For world building it might be really nice. To see the same combo over and over, and then you roll up with a unique combo, it makes you stand out. Another example, why would anyone want their player hampered in their primary attribute? A zero to hero mentality could explain it. Puny farmer becomes the greatest warrior. It might coincide with the unique character path stated above. Reasons are opinion. That's it. It is hard to change opinions because each table is different.

Bear in mind that with floating ASIs you can still play a character with a low primary attribute. As far as I can tell, the only concepts that are prevented by floating ASIs is are ones that depend on other people at the table being worse than you at something. Which...personal opinion...is not something that I think should be supported.

Now, how does all this relate to a blind eye?
My example was, when creating a game, you have knobs. Character creation in D&D has the following knobs:

HP, Speed, Attributes, Skill and Tool Proficiencies, Weapon and Armor Proficiencies, and Racial Feats.

In my opinion, these other knobs seem to be removed from the argument, as if they didn't exist. The only knob looked at is Racial ASI, and how on some characters at level one, you can only turn the knob to 3, while some you can turn to 4. So we (myself included) seem to be only staring at the Racial ASI knob.

I gave some specific examples earlier. A mentioned the wood elf barbarian that has a movement speed greater than any other race/barbarian in the game. 45' per turn, and able to use a bonus action for another 45'. So 90' per turn. No dwarf can ever do that. So is the trade off of speed worth starting off with a 15 strength instead of 16? In my opinion, the answer was yes. Plus, I had a better initiative and could use mask of the wild, which for someone who moves 90' is a big deal. Again, does that outweigh the +1? It seems no one is bothering to answer that, hence turning a blind eye to these racial feats which greatly empower any barbarian who chooses the totem path of the Eagle. (Which also gives disadvantage on opportunity attacks, so you can imagine this elven warrior weaving in and out of enemies for 90' a turn and still attacking! Or worse yet, moving 45' towards the target, attacking, then moving 45' away!)

Apply a floating ASI to that example. The question arises, why would anyone choosing totem path of the eagle be anything other than a wood elf? There is no trade off. Just good heaped upon great.

This line of thought can be applied to all these dials because D&D is table dependent.

Funny how few wood elf path of the eagle totem barbarians I've seen. You may be on to the next trend.

But let's pick a few things that we do see repeatedly:

• Great Weapon Master barbarians
• Dex melee fighters with rapiers (even though a rapier only averages +1 damage over other weapon choices)
• Rogues with rapiers and Booming Blade
• Halfling rogue archers (with Sharpshooter!) who Hide behind a larger companion every single round in order to attack with advantage

And what happens on the forums? There have been numerous threads griping and grumbling about what a cliché each of these combinations has become.

So, I refute your premise. I think the community has been pretty consistent about complaining when certain combinations of choices are clearly better than other choices. And I complain not only because I see it so often it's boring, but because I personally don't want to have to make a choice between "clearly better" and "what I really want to roleplay."

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah, on a personal level I would use attributes as a cap, nothing more. Wouldn't even have their bonus apply to rolls. And race would have nothing to do with the caps. Race, culture, class and background would just grant skills and feats. Then every level you can choose to move up an attribute (raise the cap) or move up some skills (attacks would be a skill). So your 12 charisma dragonborn can only have a +1 in persuasion until they move their cap up. And since you can raise stuff every level, if you really wanted it, it wouldn't take long to achieve a better score.

Maybe not the kind of cap you meant, but if I had to choose between racial caps and racial ASIs, I'd take racial caps in a heartbeat. Most games never get there, and when the other guys spends his ASI getting his score higher than yours, you can spend yours on a Feat he doesn't have.

I'd rather not have racial caps, but if they existed I don't think it would affect my choices at 1st level. I'd probably prefer to see them implemented by increasing the cap for some races, rather than lowering it for others.

EDIT: Maybe a solution to this is to give everybody a feat at 1st level, and allow some races to instead add +2 to certain stats. So the halfling can't take +2 to Str, but he can take the Piercer feat. The orc gets to decide how important it really is to be "the strongest", but could also take the feat if he wanted to. Given how common VHumans are, I'd say that feats make a pretty tempting alternative to maximized ability scores.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One of the projects I'm working on is a TSR-era clone to be presented in a more inclusive way, both mechanically and aesthetically (long story for a different discussion). The overwhelming feedback I've gotten from that is to not have racial ability modifiers (not just because B/X didn't have them either, but that helped) or at the very least to make them less impactful and to instead implement ability modifiers based on culture and class.

WoTC has moved towards that direction now. PF already has IIRC.

So look. That's the way rpg game design is going. There are always trends in the community, and this is a pretty big one and I think it's here to stay. There are too many reasons to not have them (racial connotations, lack of customization, etc) and not enough to keep them (but halflings shouldn't be a strong as a goliath in a fantasy game where the same PC can go toe to toe wrestling a storm giant at a certain level).

We can either accept it and move on, or still be bitter about it to no constructive purpose at all. None of these discussions will change how the ttrpg design community is going away from racial modifiers.

I'm reminded of the Bob Dylan song, The Times, They Are A Change'n.

 

[Guest 6801328]

That's where you stop making sense.

"Here are the playable races in my campaign. Read about what they are like, and choose what you want to play."

But you want to divorce what your PC race is from the reality of what that race is.

Not sure if that's willful misinterpretation, or you genuinely don't understand, but I'm kinda tired of re-explaining right now.