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."

 

[Charlaquin]

I have a hard time believing that a group would not come along and say, why is the halfling better than the orc at being a (we'll say samurai type of fighter). Within no time, it would be contested as to why the orc can't learn samurai skills as readily or easily as a halfling.

I don’t find this slippery slope argument to be at all compelling. If the post-Tasha’s changes to ASIs start resulting in people complaining that X race features are too strong and makes class Y of other races unplayable, I’ll go ahead and eat crow.

It only boils down to two things:

• I want everyone on the same playing field (only at the beginning apparently)
• I want it easier

Yes, I do want everyone on the same playing field from the beginning. Where they go from there is up to them. I have no idea where you’re getting the “easier” part.

If we reduce both arguments down to their most fundamental, we have “I want the game to be more fair” vs. “I don’t want the game to change.” Sorry, but I find the former infinitely more compelling.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Does bring up a question of why, once we go 5.5 or 5.Essentials or whatever, the +2/+1 will be still appended to Race instead of just part of character creation?

 

[Remathilis]

"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?

Yup.

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

First, Goliath is far from the only +2 Strength race in the game. The PHB alone has Mountain Dwarves, Dragonborn, and Half-Orcs, and additional races with +2 Strength include Centaur, Githyanki, Longtooth Shifters, Bugbears, Orcs, Tortles, and Minotaurs. Secondly, considering the difference between a 17 (15+2) and 16 (15+1) is minimal (same +3 mod) you can add +1 Strength races and include Tritons, Duergar, Beasthide Shifters, Leonin, Earth Genasi, Fallen Aasimar, Firbolg, and Zariel-lineage Tieflings. Oh, and normal boring humans. And let's not get into races which already come with a floating bonus, like variant Human, Half-elf, Warforged, Changeling, Simic Hybrid, and Custom Lineage. If we model "strongest" based on having a bonus to Strength score, the Goliath has a lot of competition.

Even if you want to argue that Powerful Build makes them stronger than the average 16/17 starting strength, you still have firbolgs, centaurs, orcs and bugbears who have that (or equivalent) trait. Goliath is still doesn't stand out in the crowd.

Ultimately, When you already have the same strength as a lanky gith or a stocky dwarf, does it REALLY matter if you can be matched by a halfling? Maybe there should be a different consideration than an ability score modifier when determining "strongest"?

Or Put another way...

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I actually prefer increased point buy over floating ASIs, so we’re in agreement here. I just used the phrase “in a world with floating ASIs” because it’s the world Tasha’s and this UA have shown us a glimpse of.

 

[Scribe]

Does bring up a question of why, once we go 5.5 or 5.Essentials or whatever, the +2/+1 will be still appended to Race instead of just part of character creation?

Definitely not. It wont tie in at all, there's no point.

 

[Catulle]

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.

If nothing else, the assertion that where one pegs the Armour Class in the statistical example doesn't matter... holds some issues when it comes to comparable outputs.

If anything, 5e exacerbated that issue through bounded accuracy.

 

[Charlaquin]

Not everyone uses point buy!

You can also improve the standard array and the dice rolling method.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Hmm.

That indeed seems to be the case. I'm sorry to have dropped on the wrong desk. My bad.

 

[Charlaquin]

And this is true for many other races, so, why get the rid of ASI?

Wha...? I don’t even know how to begin to answer this. It doesn’t even address the point I was making in the post you quoted. Get rid of the ASI for all the reasons we’ve been discussing for the past 50 pages, I guess?

 

[Charlaquin]

And? Rolling 4d6 already has an average greater than that of point buy. Roll 5d6. Roll seven times instead of six. It does not matter as the two are not comparable - not even close.
And if you are rolling, then the entire ASI debate isn't even for your table. It specifically is about one race starting with a +1 advantage over another. When you roll, that all goes out the window.

Very true. This debate really does hinge on point buy and array, as it is only with those generation methods that a character’s race determines whether or not they can start with a +3 in their primary stat.