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."

 

[Minigiant]

If they are doing Innistrad, then we need more Horrors.

 

[Guest 6801328]

everywhere c'mon

No, sorry, that's not good enough. Please show me where just one person said that all they care about is what it looks like, and the rest is irrelevant.

Why explain again? I think It's clear. On one hand there are the "mental attributes" INT, WIS and CHA. Those are controversial in being genetic so ok for me to remove from ASI, cause it could be considered some sort of "nazi" way of looking at things. But at least for "physical attributes" is completely nonsense to consider that cultural.

Do you think that the average Spartan would have had the same strength score as the average Athenian? Or are they genetically different?

In the world of D&D the physical complexion of a race originates physical performance in the same way as it happens in the real world. Starting from that it's obvious that some races are stronger or more agile then others and ASI reflect those difference. Remove it and the connection between physiology and game mechanics disappear. For me this is not a logical way of building rules / worlds. I care for flexibility in charachter building as I care for inclusivity but not to the expenses of a logical game mechanics. WOTC seems to push this beyond ending in defining CULTURAL something like STR or DEX: if I go outside the context of the game and think of it in a more general view i found that it stinks like an orwellian change in meaning of words due to ideological views and that offense my int and scares me.

Ok, I'm glad you said that, because I can truly understand that if somebody thinks this racial ASI think is a sign of impending cultural apocalypse, then it must be resisted at all costs. I get it. (I mean, it's not a sign of impending cultural apocalypse, but just like the value of +1 to your primary stat, what matters is perception not reality.)

As for all this nonsense about "logic" it's true that in the real world strength correlates highly (although not perfectly) to size. And in the real world giants would collapse under their own weight. And plate armor doesn't weigh 65 pounds. And you don't walk away from 200 foot falls just because you're really good at sword fighting. Etc. etc. etc.

So I think it's a little silly to draw a line in the sand and say, "It's ok that halfling player characters can start off as strong as a pony, and eventually be as strong as goliath player characters, but it blows my sense of immersion if halfling can start off as strong as goliaths."

That's fine if you think that's too illogical. People all have their own pet peeves: for some it's the archery rules, for some it's the heavy armor rules, for some it's the falling rules.

But to make a sweeping statement that this one thing crosses the logic, and that everybody should be able to see that, is a bit myopic.

 

[Guest 6801328]

My 9 years old son, reading a RPG manual where STR is defined as a Cultural attribute, absorb this concept and could make wrong assumption based on that fact that could bring him in error in another occasion in his life totally uncorrelated with games.

So, wait, let me get this straight: you don't find the whole orc portrayal thing problematic (I remember your posts on the subject) and don't think there's any connection between fantasy games and racism in the real world, but you're worried that your 9 year old might transfer a disconnect between size categories and strength scores into some kind of real world blunder?

Seriously?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I agree that ASIs aren’t the necessarily the best way to differentiate races, but Ability Scores are central to character design. If the default rule is just get +2 and +1 to place anywhere, then I can see that may actually limit creativity because this is a game and has certain ‘success‘ conditions and so why would anyone not simply put these bonuses in the score that increases their success chance, which would lead to pretty obvious choices? I remember when a game would encourage you to play some not obviously optimal for the narrative experience it could provide.

It‘s probably just me meta gaming too much, but I have been looking for game that tries to make optimisation less important. In D&D, the method behind the overall goal of character advancement, which enables the story to progress, creates a desire for some level of optimisation and this change feeds into that, and I feel that is a negative.

Totally agree, and I wish there was a middle ground between rolling dice in order and using Point Buy/Standard Array.

But the minmax optimization you fear already goes on, and wouldn't change just because the +2/+1 is floating. The only change would be that instead of choosing the race that has the bonuses they want, people would choose more diverse race/class combinations and then put the stats in the same place.

That's my belief, anyway.

 

[Remathilis]

Understood, but this is not necessarily good. You assume that this changes in the wind are good. I say that the optimum would be if the changes focus on distortion and not to push to twist reality. Remember "war is peace", "slavery is freedom"...? I feel myself as somebody who wants logic and reality prevail. When an idea of society overcome reality you easily end up in building something very nasty and the history has given many examples of this. Obviously you can consider this a little bit exagerated in the context of a game, but ideology penetrate in society as slowly as a poison in the vein, using language as vector and twisting the words then it penetrates, day by day, in all human activity. My 9 years old son, reading a RPG manual where STR is defined as a Cultural attribute, absorb this concept and could make wrong assumption based on that fact that could bring him in error in another occasion in his life totally uncorrelated with games.

An easy mistake to make. I made the mistake of thinking MMA fighters can survive falls from terminal velocity due to high hit points.

 

[Guest 6801328]

An easy mistake to make. I made the mistake of thinking MMA fighters can survive falls from terminal velocity due to high hit points.

I thought the same thing! After 3 fatalities the MMA banned me from using that move.

 

[Scribe]

Lets not dance around the various associations. We all know what they are, and it will just get the thread locked out.

I find the 'orc's being evil is racist' absolutely comical, I've been reading fantasy since I was a child, and the whole point is there is Good (tm) and there is Evil (tm) and yes that gets applied at a racial level within the fantasy framework. It does NOT get applied to the real world, by anyone with a working brain.

Heck, was this not a Drizzt arc?

It's not relevant to the discussion of racial ASI, game mechanics, and class combinations.

1. I dont think anyone is arguing that we absolutely must have ASI tied to race.
2. I dont think anyone is arguing that today's systems cannot be updated and improved.
3. I do believe, that there should be distinctions at a mechanical (if not ASI) level, as that is a core component of a fantasy world. There are biological differences between the races, which IMO should be mechanically represented in some fashion.

Currently, D&D does a fairly poor job of that. If they are going to go with the Tasha's system, then I expect them to improve on making the various player species, distinct in ways that go beyond 'i want to look like a dragon' or 'i want to be dressed up in a devil costume'.

I want some crunch at the racial level, that is meaningful. Others dont. Thats fine, but I do believe a middle ground can be reached.

Then again, is Wizards on this forum? Do they even care that we are near 60 pages in on this? I doubt that.

 

[Dire Bare]

My 9 years old son, reading a RPG manual where STR is defined as a Cultural attribute, absorb this concept and could make wrong assumption based on that fact that could bring him in error in another occasion in his life totally uncorrelated with games.

Sorry to pile on here, but . . .

The Strength attribute is NOT being defined as cultural. This is a misunderstanding of the UA article. A BONUS to Strength based on your race is being defined as cultural. Significant difference. It's the bonus, not the base attribute.

Again, I think we need to remove ASIs from race/subrace in the game. But, imagine a race/culture in the game that promotes athleticism, like the goliaths . . . represented as a +2 to Strength.

This can lead to stereotypes of our fantasy creatures like, "All goliaths are natural and superior athletes" which is uncomfortably similar to racist stereotypes in the real world. Hence the outcry.

 

[TwoSix]

Then again, is Wizards on this forum? Do they even care that we are near 60 pages in on this? I doubt that.

I feel like the "free-floating" ASI thing is pretty much set in stone, but maybe the feedback to the UA article will possibly change minds. Tough to say.

 

[Umbran]

2) You never have to optimize, even in games that are high on the challenge rating. It's always a player choice. The worse thing that happens is if your characters are weak is that the PCs die, and that's no big deal.

Also, there's a very big question about what you are optimizing for. We usually think of this as "combat", and even more specifically, "Damage per round".

This, of course, will hose you if, in order to succeed, the party needs broad skill bases beyond their primary damage stats.

How much of the need to optimize is rooted in limited vision in adventure design?