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."

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, but so are other players. If your strongest Halfling is stronger than the strongest Minotaur, then the player who wants to play the strongest Minotaur -- stronger than any Halfling -- does what?

You're avoiding answering the question.

We are talking to each other. And I'm asking: if you want to play an Elf that is 'stronger than the strongest Minotaur', what do I say to the guy who just rolled up a Minotaur and maxed his strength, hoping to be the strongest character?

You can't have it both ways. You can't have an Elf stronger than the strongest Minotaur in the same party or game world as a Minotaur that is stronger than the strongest Elf, unless you just don't care about logic.

Someone needs to be stronger, or they both need to be the same. I'm saying the Minotaur should be stronger; you seem to be saying they should both be the same. But if they're both the same, then Minotaurs are not stronger than Elves, despite the fact that they are described as especially big and strong in the racial descriptions ('large sized', over 6' tall, 'barrel-chested', with an 'imposing presence', etc.), and despite the fact that they were in fact stronger in earlier editions. The mechanics don't any longer match the description, the physiology, or the lore.

I know I'm still 2... holly frack, 27 pages behind (jeebus) but this stands out to me.


It stands out to me because the exact same question can be had about whether or not you can play an Orc who is the strongest orc alive, while someone else tries to play an orc who is the strongest orc alive.

What do you do?

Well... you work it out. You find a way to coexist, because if to players are trying to fulfil the same concept, there is a conflict. So asking this about elves vs minotaurs is the same as asking it about minotaurs vs Goliaths vs Orcs (who all already have the + strength, and therefore are just as identical, but it never seemed to cause a problem before)

 

[Charlaquin]

Nice. Ok, you got me on that one.

But seriously, if my class concept is 'My class concept is to play x race, but its going to have better stats than that race has, with no downsides', then honestly, the best thing is just to say, 'Sorry, you'll have choose something else.'

The entire argument we’re having is whether or not races should have built-in stats (and by stats, I mean ability scores).

 

[Scribe]

I rather think it is.

The rest is us complaining about our dumb philosophies, but the reality is we're talking about a roleplaying game and player experience is what matters. And we're talking about dumping that in favor of a lot of dumb tradition and worthless verisimilitude that are both totally divorced from actual play.

No way.

Because the REALITY is you and I can do whatever.we.want at our* table.

That is, and has always been, the reality. The reality post-Tasha's is you even had an official way to move ASI in a far more flexible way you want to.

So no, the dumb philosophy, or if you would indulge me, the question of design and world building principles, are actually the point here.

 

[Guest 6801328]

One small thing that could be done with Strong races is to give them proficiency with "Feats of Strength". Basically those Strength based rolls that are supposed to not be covered by Athletics (Or even give expertise - it's not like they are game changing rolls normally).

"When you fail a Strength ability check, you can re-roll the result. You may use this ability as many times as your proficiency bonus, and regain all uses at the end of a long rest."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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.

What percentage do you regard as "much"?
Do you believe that the player that feels "required" to play a goliath in the current rules because they do 3% more damage than a halfling, is going to be fine playing a non-halfling under Tasha's rules when halflings do 3% more damage than goliaths?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I know I'm still 2... holly frack, 27 pages behind (jeebus) but this stands out to me.


It stands out to me because the exact same question can be had about whether or not you can play an Orc who is the strongest orc alive, while someone else tries to play an orc who is the strongest orc alive.

What do you do?

Well... you work it out. You find a way to coexist, because if to players are trying to fulfil the same concept, there is a conflict. So asking this about elves vs minotaurs is the same as asking it about minotaurs vs Goliaths vs Orcs (who all already have the + strength, and therefore are just as identical, but it never seemed to cause a problem before)

I suspect he's going to claim that in a tie both orcs count as "the strongest orc alive". So rather than argue that point, it would be simpler to change your phrasing to "stronger than any other orc alive". Pro tip.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The difference in damage is even more minimal. As the +5 fighter will have done approximately 2 more points of damage than the +4 fighter. In 40 rounds! 2 points - 40 rounds.

By the way, this is wrong.

I think you're only counting the extra damage from the extra hits.

The +5 fighter will do 1 extra damage every time they both hit, plus two more hits that do as much damage as the +4 fighter, plus the two points you already counted.

In twenty swings, the first fighter will hit 14 times, the second fighter will hit 15 times. If we assume 2d6 damage (greatsword) then the first guy does ((3.5 * 2) + 4) * 14 = 154 / 20 = 7.7 damage per swing. The second guy does ((3.5 * 2) + 5) * 15 = 180 / 20 = 9 damage per swing. 9 / 7.7 ~= 17% more damage, per swing.

And that's against a really low armor class. Increase the AC (or use a 1H weapon) and the difference widens.

 

[Charlaquin]

What percentage do you regard as "much"?
Do you believe that the player that feels "required" to play a goliath in the current rules because they do 3% more damage than a halfling, is going to be fine playing a non-halfling under Tasha's rules when halflings do 3% more damage than goliaths?

Percentage? I don’t think most players are crunching the numbers to figure out exactly what percent DPR increase they get from what features. Sure, some do, but they’re the minority. On the other hand, a signifcant number of players feels that the difference between a +2 modifier and a +3 modifier in their primary ability has a significant impact on gameplay. And understandably so; with how often you make rolls that your primary ability affects (every attack roll, every damage roll, most of the checks the party will be relying on you to make), you don’t have to do a bunch of math to notice that that 1 point difference having an impact. On the other hand, rerolling natural 1s? Maybe statistically it has a similar effect in the long term? I don’t know, I’m not a mathematician. But I‘ve seen players forget they even have that feature often enough to know it won’t feel like as big of a deal as ability modifiers do. And at the end of the day that’s what really matters. If people feel like they can’t play the race they want to without being gimped, there’s a problem, whatever the math may say.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don’t think most players are crunching the numbers to figure out exactly what percent DPR increase they get from what features. Sure, some do, but they’re the minority.

/waveshand

And as a minority, I have to say that I'm deeply, deeply offended by the omission of Data Scientist as a base class.

On the other hand, a signifcant number of players feels that the difference between a +2 modifier and a +3 modifier in their primary ability has a significant impact on gameplay.

OMG. The +3 is...is...FIFTY PERCENT HIGHER than the +2.

I want. I need. I must have a 16. My precious.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

OD&D is tricky, it doesn't have racial mods, but to be fair it barely has STAT mods, depending how many supplements you're using.
Basic doesn't have racial mods, but that's because races were represented by a single class(!) and had certain ability score minimums you needed to meet to play it. Ironically, elves didn't need dex, but Str and Int.
AD&D (1e and 2e) had racial mods along with racial mins and maxs. An elf had +1 dex, -1 con. They also couldn't have less than an 8 Int, 7 Dex, 6 Con, and 8 Cha. Other races had maximums as well, like half-orcs capping at a 14 Wis.

Thank you. I knew about 2e, but ODND and Basic I’ve never had any desire to play.

Anyway, point being, it’s bat-scat absurd to suggest that 5e “isn’t D&D” and is “disrespectful to the game and the people who designed it” because it doesn’t enforce racial stat mods anymore.