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."

 

[Hurin70]

Enabling character choice is primus inter pares among factors, but there are certainly other considerations. Wanting to play a 3rd party race in my game is a point for discussion, legitimately wanting to play a Klingon Jedi is an indication that the player is probably not a great fit for the table.

I actually wouldn't mind someone playing a Klingon Jedi.. so long as he got a strength bonus

For the record I agree that enabling character choice should be an important factor. I just wouldn't always make it primus pilus. It doesn't trump the suspension of disbelief for me, or respecting the lore of the world. If someone really wants to play a sentient T-Rex in a game I am setting in Middle Earth, then sorry, but the lore wins.

 

[Scribe]

Don't hear it ANYMORE. 21 years ago....

Indeed. And in the game ones gender is irrelevant.

Exactly what I don't want race to be.

 

[TwoSix]

I actually wouldn't mind someone playing a Klingon Jedi.. so long as he got a strength bonus

For the record I agree that enabling character choice should be an important factor. I just wouldn't always make it primus pilus. It doesn't trump the suspension of disbelief for me, or respecting the lore of the world. If someone really wants to play a Smurf in a game I am setting in Middle Earth, then sorry, but the lore wins.

Sure, I agree with that. Once the parameters of the campaign are agreed upon, I expect everyone, DM and players, to respect those parameters.

 

[Hurin70]

The common argument about races and ability scores in this thread is word-for-word the exact same argument as those who used to want women to have strength penalties in D&D, just with the word 'women' and 'men' replaced with 'halflings' and 'minotaurs'. I suspect it's also the same people, but I can't tell for sure.

It's not the same people -- at least not always.

I am for assigned racial ASIs but against strength penalties for women. Why? There is of course the consideration that women have historically been marginalized and disadvantaged, so we don't want to perpetuate stereotypes or further marginalize women. But there's also a practical argument. The differences in upper body strength between men and women are not in the same ballpark as the differences in strength between Chimpanzees and Bulls.

The current world record in the clean and Jerk for men weighing 81kg is 207 kg; for women in the same weight category the record is 158kg. That is significant, but not even in the same ballpark as the difference between what a Bull vs a Chimp can pull.

So happily, both considerations of equity and the actual math are in agreement here. It's when they disagree that you run into problems.

 

[Iry]

If we're going by the movies, he has a stronger character than Superman despite only having like three lines.

He's also more heroic!

Hey now, Christopher Reeves was the boss! Keaton, Nicholson, and Pfeiffer were also pretty cool.

 

[Hurin70]

Sure, I agree with that. Once the parameters of the campaign are agreed upon, I expect everyone, DM and players, to respect those parameters.

Cool.

So for me, the parameters I think of are things like, 'The lore says Dwarves are hardy, and Orcs are strong.' I guess for some other people, the more important parameter is, 'Players should be able to play whatever they want.' We all have to pick what the acceptable parameters are for our table.

 

[TwoSix]

So for me, the parameters I think of are things like, 'The lore says Dwarves are hardy, and Orcs are strong.' I guess for some other people, the more important parameter is, 'Players should be able to play whatever they want.' We all have to pick what the acceptable parameters are for our table.

Sure, I just don't see why those two statements would be remotely in contradiction.

In my own games, I would probably give most Dwarves a 14-16 in Con, since they tend to be hardy. Orcs would probably be around 16 Str for a bog-standard orc. None of that is impacted in any way by what the stats of the PCs are.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Indeed. And in the game ones gender is irrelevant.

Really? Gender is highly relevant in the games I play in. Just not in combat.

 

[Guest 6801328]

None of that is impacted in any way by what the stats of the PCs are.

Somehow the difference between PCs and NPCs doesn't seem to matter to those who prefer racial ASIs. I don't understand why, but that line of reasoning seems to fall on deaf ears every time.

 

[Scribe]

Really? Gender is highly relevant in the games I play in. Just not in combat.

Mechanics? Again, what have I been saying over and over.