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."

 

[Scribe]

That isn't a character concept, that's just a description of mechanics of the rules. Are you saying the rule should support the character concept of "I am a goliath stronger than every halfling right-now but not necessarily later in my career" rather than "I am an orc who is weaker than an average human and will never get stronger"?

Right, and as 3 or 4 people have been continuously stating, what the primary issue is, paraphrased.

"It is not logical that a level 1 X has the same stats as a level 1 Y, given the framework of the fluff since forever."

That is then extrapolated to what that means in terms of setting, culture, biology, race, and so on, but fundamentally thats the breakdown.

It doesnt matter if its a +1, or a +10, because ultimately that either does not matter (10 vs 11) or it does. It also doesnt matter at level, whatever, when everyone is capped out at 20 anyway, and there are only other minor ways to differentiate.

One can then argue that the journey to that 20 stat is the point, and that the fact both Halflings and Goliaths start at the same point is the flaw.

Ultimately though, the primary argument as I see it stated here over and over and over.

"It is not logical within the fluff/view of the setting, that a level 1 Halfling, is just as strong as a level 1 Goliath, when both are focusing on Strength primarily."

Its all an abstraction, I think we all get that, the issues are simply.

1. Where does one draw the line on what 'makes sense' from a starting stat point of view.
2. What differences do you want baked into a racial definition.
3. Is it ever acceptable to have a race better fill a role/class than another race.

Everyone will have a different line in the sand for that, and thats understood and fine!

The issue is when the rules officially dictate those answers.

Pre-Tasha's + Tasha's (both as equally valid options) = Good.
Pre-Tasha's = Less Good
Tasha's = Less Good.

More people, would be satisfied, with a maintenance of the systems (both of them) provided with the release of Tasha's.

The REMOVAL of the pre-Tasha's system, the REMOVAL of that option going forward for any new Race/Lineage, and indeed with the new edition (whenever it comes), is and will be, the issue.

 

[Don Durito]

Counterpoint: using the Strength score (as it works in 5e) as a way to represent size is a really bad idea.

The entire range of strength scores available to any being in the universe that can move is 1-30. And humans, with no magic involved, take up at least the 3-18 part of that range.

So, Godzilla, Super Dimensional Fortress Macross, Unicron (a planet), Galactus the Planet-Eater, or Kord (the physical embodiment of the very concept of strength) cannot, under these rules, be twice as strong as a human could possibly be, nor can he be more than three times as strong as an average dude.

Put another way: if the DC for a strength check is 12 to 15, literally any being in the universe can succeed or fail. Ergo: the ability to lift an object cannot reasonably be controlled by one's strength score alone, because you'd have a size of rock that an aphid could lift but Superman might fail to lift.

Strength works fine if it measure how strong you are for a creature your size, but size need to be covered by a separate stat (or whatever rule). Alternatively you could change the rules for how the Strength ability score works to make it different from all the other scores.

(Note that all the other ability scores work well enough under a human scale - something might be smarter than a human, but we don't need to model anything on a scale that doesn't work for humans.)

What are you arguing with exactly. The argument in the post you responded to was.

"This is the problem with size. You either represent it mechanically some way or you don't represent it all. And if you don't represent it at all, then you take away a lot of the fun of playing it."

To which you present as a counterpoint

Counterpoint: using the Strength score (as it works in 5e) as a way to represent size is a really bad idea.

But that doesn't make any sense. As these two things are not opposites at all.

The opposite to what I sad would "size should not be represented mechanically at all." But you don't seem to say that anywhere at all.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong person?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Halflings may be good warriors, but halflings with heavy armors isn't the most optimal build for them. Maybe in the next year there is a playtesting of the martial adepts, with the swordsage class, a fighter class with light amor.

And halflings are better with a slinger than with a sword.

So, you clearly have preferences, or even preconceived notions, about how certain classes should look and behave.

And to some extent I agree with you. I don't love the image of a halfing in plate armor wrestling with dragons and winning. I can't imagine I will ever play halfling warrior with the goal of getting to 20 strength.

But there are a lot of a character concepts I don't like. I hate drow PCs, personally. And, honestly, most of the exotic races that got added after the PHB. (Tortles are an exception. I love them. Go figure.) I wish WotC hadn't introduced them, and that other players wouldn't play them.

But that's D&D. That's how it works. It's a game of over-the-top fantasy heroes doing impossible things. I really can't fathom why a superstrong halfling is somehow over the line.

 

[Scribe]

Again, given all the utterly nonsensical things in RPG game worlds, it seems odd that you're fixated on this one thing.

I'm not. As I noted this morning, I slept on it, and I see the arguments on the other side.

I simply want to see race continue to matter, either through fully realized race mechanics (more of that Dwarven Resilience, or Savage Attacks, or more rules impact in Size) or an expanded official Racial feats system.

With a cap of 20, identical starting point, and a generic +2/+1 ASI on creation, the Ability Scores fail to reflect anything meaningful about race. I see that as a net negative as I want choices to matter.

EDIT: Fully Transparency. I'd be happy with this as well.

Race +1 ASI with Restriction
Background +1 ASI with Restriction
Class + 1 ASI with Restriction

EDIT x 2: But since even THAT wont get a Halfling to the same potential Str as a level 1 Goliath, drop the restriction on Race +1 ASI, but put rules in that cement the differences between races, again like Dwarven Resilience and what have you for everyone.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'm not. As I noted this morning, I slept on it, and I see the arguments on the other side.

I simply want to see race continue to matter, either through fully realized race mechanics (more of that Dwarven Resilience, or Savage Attacks, or more rules impact in Size) or an expanded official Racial feats system.

With a cap of 20, identical starting point, and a generic +2/+1 ASI on creation, the Ability Scores fail to reflect anything meaningful about race. I see that as a net negative as I want choices to matter.

Eloquently stated.

I agree that if racial ASIs are abandoned and they are not replaced with flavorful abilities, the races will lose some of their feel. Not much, in my book, but some.

I know it wouldn't suit some, but even if they simply said, "Dwarves add +2 to Constitution, or the player may choose to add the +2 to a different ability score" it would mechanically reinforce (especially to those poor befuddled newbies) that Dwarves are hardy, without constraining class choice/race choices.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I have said some times in the past the TTRPGs are like a building-block toy. After buying you create you want, and it hasn't to be like the cover of the box. You are free to create, and others to say your idea is cool or horrible.

Some players like PCs of evil humanoid races because it's wearing a moster costume as Halloween.

But little humanoids as fighters will need ranged weapons or some way if the DMs use giants and other mosters whose weakest point is on the head or too tall place. Here I miss something like a level 1 martial maneuver as the magic spell "jump", weaker than a spell but it can be used more times.

I understand a halfling version of Conan the barbarian may a gaudy or naff idea. A swashbuckler halfling riding a wardog is a different thing.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What are you arguing with exactly. The argument in the post you responded to was.


To which you present as a counterpoint

But that doesn't make any sense. As these two things are not opposites at all.

The opposite to what I sad would "size should not be represented mechanically at all." But you don't seem to say that anywhere at all.

Did you perhaps quote the wrong person?

I guess I did not explain myself clearly:

In some way isn't good enough. If you represent it in a bad way, that's worse than not representing it at all. Tying size to strength score is worse than ignoring size.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

That’s fine, we don’t have to agree in our assessments. But yes, I do believe +1 to your primary ability has a much more significant impact than any other racial feature in 5e.

 

[Scribe]

Eloquently stated.

I agree that if racial ASIs are abandoned and they are not replaced with flavorful abilities, the races will lose some of their feel. Not much, in my book, but some.

I know it wouldn't suit some, but even if they simply said, "Dwarves add +2 to Constitution, or the player may choose to add the +2 to a different ability score" it would mechanically reinforce (especially to those poor befuddled newbies) that Dwarves are hardy, without constraining class choice/race choices.

Yeah, I mean I get that fundamentally we are splitting hairs here, and thats fine, forums are for passing time and discussion is fun.

I fully realize that I'm on the far end of 'give me restriction' with my happiness to have a Tiefling with -2 Cha, vs 'give me no restriction' with a Halfling Titan player.

All good, we all fall somewhere on that spectrum.

 

[Don Durito]

I guess I did not explain myself clearly:

In some way isn't good enough. If you represent it in a bad way, that's worse than not representing it at all. Tying size to strength score is worse than ignoring size.

No dude. Your post is perfectly clear. (And obvious) It just made no sense at all as a response presented as a counterpoint to what I wrote.

You seem to be responding to someone who is arguing that the Strength bonus is a good way to represent size. As I don't think that, and didn't say anything like that I'm suggesting you may have quoted the wrong person.