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."

 

[Azzy]

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?

Right, and that also begs the question that, if the floating ASIs remain tied to race, then what purpose does it serve? If it's just a part of character creation, are they even necessary when the point-buy method could just have the number of points increased?

Now, if they were tied to class (and, say, subclass), they could serve the purpose of ensuring that the class' main ability scores always get a boost.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

IMO, if I were a betting man, I'd bet there will be no racial ability modifiers going forward into a new edition. Any ability modifier will be based on background/class instead. AFAIC, the writing is pretty clear on the wall.

*edit For races that are supposed to be X (like strong), that will be handled via traits, like how much you can carry (like the goliath)

 

[Scribe]

Yep, so I certainly hope we see some Racial Feats in the core system, or an expansion on the mechanics that make each race distinct.

 

[Vaalingrade]

At the very least, I bet next UA will have some cultural themes or something similar with ASIs tied to them that don't stack with existing racial ASIs.

 

[Arial Black]

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.

I actually like that solution!

Allow any race with a +2 racial modifier to exchange that modifier for a feat at 1st level. That would mean that using point buy any race can start with a 16 in any ability score that is deemed to be so crucial. And it would still leave those races with, say, +2 Str, to remain conceptually and mechanically 'stronger' even if your PC orc didn't have 16 Str. Because even with +2 Str a player was never required to have at least 16 Str.

It also means that feats are now available to every race at 1st level, except those that get three +1s, and I'd let them trade two of them for a feat.

One of the reasons I play so many human PCs is that I like feats so much. This would expand my race choices considerably. And for those who are looking for the most flexibility in character creation regarding race and effectiveness in a particular role, this rule does it far, far better then the mere floating racial bonuses.

This is so good that I might make this a houserule for games I DM. For me, it allows the character creation flexibility you desire while keeping the coherent narrative that I need.

Everybody wins! Well done!

 

[Charlaquin]

"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?

Halfling Luck doesnt make a halfling much better at being a strength-based class than a Goliath. It’s certainly an advantage halflings have over Goliaths, but that advantage is the same regardless of class, and Goliaths have the advantage of Powerful Build (which actually does represent being stronger, unlike Lucky), resistance to cold damage, adaptation to high elevations, and Stone’s Endurance. Granted, that makes it much harder to point the newbie to a race that will be the clear “best” for what they want their character to do. And that is precisely the intended effect of getting rid of racial ASIs: to make it so that there isn’t a clear best race for any class or build. You can play any race you want and be effective at any class you want. Pick based on the flavor that appeals to you and your own assessment of the race’s features.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which one is it?
Are you sick and tired of seeing the same race/class combinations or do you just really want all races to start with the same class determined primary stat?
I am going to guess it is a little of both, but please correct me if I am wrong.

It’s both.

 

[Hurin70]

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.

Fluff is fluff. You asked if it bothered me if a description contradicted mechanics; yes, things like that bother me. If flavor doesn't contradict mechanics, then I'm not as bothered by any contradictions. I would prefer that there be no contradictions; but ones in which flavour contradicts flavour with no mechanical effect are far less concerning to me.

 

[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.

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.



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."

I’m all for a change that increases the number of elf Barbarians, tbh.

 

[Don Durito]

I would give the Goliath something more, if they are losing their Strength bonus.

But Goliaths really show the issue in that they are particulary designed for the old paradigm. I mean they seem to be almost designed with race as class mentality in mind. Everything about them is pratically written with 'Barbarian' in mind.

I think if you are playing a character who is supposed to be basically a playable giant you need something more than Powerful Build, especially as most groups ignore carrying capacity. (And the Strength bonus was never really enough anyway). The Challenge here (and in many cases) is in not just recreating the bonuses. You could give them oversized weapons or something but then that would lead to the same complaints that if you want to be a Fighter or Barbarian you should be a Goliath (and it doesn't seem like it would matter if that difference was smaller - it's already very small and mostly psychological - the issue seems to be that it's there at all).