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."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Question: do you find the 3 lineages presented in this UA to be indistinguishable? Because if we compare them to the opposite extreme, e.g. 3 hypothetical races that differ only in ASIs, I would say these are much more interesting and differentiated.

And to the obvious response of “why not both!?!?” I would say: “Because if descriptive abilities better accomplish the purported goal, why dilute that with a problematic mechanic?”

“Tradition” is not, for me, sufficient.

From the perspective of 'problematicness' it doesn't matter how exactly the difference is modelled, what matters is that the difference exists. If it is problematic bio-essentialism to say that race X is physically stronger than race Y then it doesn't make it any less problematic if it represented by 'powerful build' feature rather than a +2 to strength. The statement in itself is problematic, not the exact method of modelling it. In fact the feature is in a way more essentialist, because ASIs still allows individual variance via point buy whereas features are static (you either have it or you don't.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

From the perspective of 'problematicness' it doesn't matter how exactly the difference is modelled, what matters is that the difference exists. If it is problematic bio-essentialism to say that race X is physically stronger than race Y then it doesn't make it any less problematic if it represented by 'powerful build' feature rather than a +2 to strength. The statement in itself is problematic, not the exact method of modelling it. In fact the feature is in a way more essentialist, because ASIs still allows individual variance via point buy whereas features are static (you either have it or you don't.)

Oh, sure, if you think the problem is bioessentialism then you are correct.

But think about it this way: if you alleviate the mechanical problem (that is, minimize the mechanical synergy between certain race/class combinations) then the highly vocal bioessentialism activists on Twitter will lose as allies those of us who just want the mechanical problem solved.

Instead of, "Racial ASIs are racist!" followed by, "...and bad design!"

It will be, "Racial abilities are racist!" followed by, "Huh? What? No, the game is fine. Sorry I'm in the middle of a combat here..."

 

[Charlaquin]

I have found the representation of races in D&D to be highly problematic at least since the third edition and I am very sympathetic to the issue. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that if depicting biological essentialism is inherently problematic, then fantasy races simply cannot exist. And perhaps they shouldn't?

We live in the world where there is only one sapient species, the humans (other great apes and cetaceans might disagree with that statement though.) In a fantasy world this is not the case. If we see fantasy races as analogous to human ethnicities, depicting any non-cosmetic biological group-wide differences is highly problematic. However, if we do not do that, then differnt sapiens species cannot truly exist, as very definition of differnt species relies exactly on such differences. Halflings, ogres, aarakochas and sahuagins are not just differnt human ethnicities, they are differnt species, some of which are much larger than others, some of which can fly and some of which can breathe under water. But then we come to the thermian argument, if the bio-essential language reminds people of similar language incorrectly used of real life ethnic groups does it really matter that this language is actually correctly applied within the confines of the fiction? To a lot of people probably not. But then again if we cannot say that differnt fantasy species are actually biologically differnt from each other then they cannot exist...

I think people should stop to think what actually is the purpose of having these differnt races in the first place.

I do think there is a valuable conversation to be had on if the very idea of fantasy “races” is even redeemable. But, like, one step at a time, yeah? Maybe some day, we’ll reach the point where the community at large takes a good, hard look at fantasy races and decides they aren’t worth the trouble. But I don’t think we’re there yet, and in the mean time, I just want to make sure the way we depict fantasy races is something the majority of the people who play the game are comfortable with.

 

[Charlaquin]

From the perspective of 'problematicness' it doesn't matter how exactly the difference is modelled, what matters is that the difference exists. If it is problematic bio-essentialism to say that race X is physically stronger than race Y then it doesn't make it any less problematic if it represented by 'powerful build' feature rather than a +2 to strength. The statement in itself is problematic, not the exact method of modelling it. In fact the feature is in a way more essentialist, because ASIs still allows individual variance via point buy whereas features are static (you either have it or you don't.)

So, as one of the folks who does think there’s a biological essentialism element to ability score increases, I want to clarify: depicting differences between the fantasy races isn’t the issue. I don’t think anyone would say it’s “problematic” to suggest that a people who average 7 feet tall and 300 pounds would tend to be stronger than a people who average 3 feet tall and 40 pounds. The problem is that ability score increases make characters of some races better suited to certain classes than others. It’s one thing to say “these people are much stronger on average than these other people.” It’s another to say “these people are naturally better fighters than these other people.”

Fortunately, I don’t think the biological essentialism angle is needed to defend the move to eliminate racial ASIs. This is primarily a game design issue for me, and if fixing the game design issue also happens to make the game more inclusive, then that’s a bonus as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh, sure, if you think the problem is bioessentialism then you are correct.

But think about it this way: if you alleviate the mechanical problem (that is, minimize the mechanical synergy between certain race/class combinations) then the highly vocal bioessentialism activists on Twitter will lose as allies those of us who just want the mechanical problem solved.

Instead of, "Racial ASIs are racist!" followed by, "...and bad design!"

It will be, "Racial abilities are racist!" followed by, "Huh? What? No, the game is fine. Sorry I'm in the middle of a combat here..."

Frankly, I am far more interested in hearing the concerns of people that are worried about racism than of those that are worried of game balance, even if I wouldn't fully agree with the specific concerns being expressed.

 

[Scribe]

Fortunately, I don’t think the biological essentialism angle is needed to defend the move to eliminate racial ASIs. This is primarily a game design issue for me, and if fixing the game design issue also happens to make the game more inclusive, then that’s a bonus as far as I’m concerned.

I typed up an absurd 'real world' analogy, but ultimately its not relevant. You see Race and Class having a link as a net negative, I see it as a logical reality in a system where races are different.

I dont want you to lose your option. I simply want to have mine too. These are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I dont want you to lose your option. I simply want to have mine too. These are not mutually exclusive.

Personally I don't have a problem with an equivalent to the "quick build" for each of the classes. "If you want to make a quick High Elf, put the +2 into Dexterity and the +1 into Intelligence." I would predict that if racial ASIs survive at all, it will be in that form.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Frankly, I am far more interested in hearing the concerns of people that are worried about racism than of those that are worried of game balance, even if I wouldn't fully agree with the specific concerns being expressed.

This thread seems like a strange place to look for that, after 74 pages. Twitter, maybe?

In any event, I guess you and I have been debating two different things. Best of luck; I hope you learn what it is you're hoping to learn, or persuade the people you're hoping to persuade. Whichever it is.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, I am far more interested in hearing the concerns of people that are worried about racism than of those that are worried of game balance, even if I wouldn't fully agree with the specific concerns being expressed.

The thing is, while you can talk about the game balance issue independently of the racial sensitivity issue, you can’t really do the reverse. The biological essentialism problem follows from the game balance problem.

For the sake of argument, let’s take it as a given that the single most important thing for a D&D character to be effective is their modifier in their class’s primary ability score. I understand that’s a controversial take - it’s the very core contention of the game balance element of this debate. But, the fact of the matter is, justified or not, a lot of players feel this way.

So, ok, assume primary ability mod trumps everything else. If that’s true, then that means a halfling can never be as good of a barbarian as a Goliath can. Because the Goliath can start out with a higher modifier in the barbarian’s primary ability, the halfling will always be playing catch-up. It will take more than half of a 20-level campaign for the halfling to finally get the same modifier in their primary ability as the Goliath has (assuming, again, that having the highest mod in their primary score is the absolute highest priority), and even then, the Goliath will then have one more beneficial feat than the halfling, or a higher modifier in a secondary score.

This isn’t an issue of one character just being stronger than the other, it’s an issue of one character being inherently better at something they both set out to be good at. If character’s racespecies can make them objectively superior to a character of a different racespecies at something they both set out to do... That feels pretty gross.

Now, again, this all depends on the underlying assumption that primary ability mod is the single most important thing to any D&D character. And I understand people on the pro-ASI side don’t believe this to be the case. But if a significant number of players feels like it is the case, it’s naturally going to feel to those players like the game is implying some kinda biologically essentialist things.

 

[Remathilis]

So, as one of the folks who does think there’s a biological essentialism element to ability score increases, I want to clarify: depicting differences between the fantasy races isn’t the issue. I don’t think anyone would say it’s “problematic” to suggest that a people who average 7 feet tall and 300 pounds would tend to be stronger than a people who average 3 feet tall and 40 pounds. The problem is that ability score increases make characters of some races better suited to certain classes than others. It’s one thing to say “these people are much stronger on average than these other people.” It’s another to say “these people are naturally better fighters than these other people.”

Fortunately, I don’t think the biological essentialism angle is needed to defend the move to eliminate racial ASIs. This is primarily a game design issue for me, and if fixing the game design issue also happens to make the game more inclusive, then that’s a bonus as far as I’m concerned.

So to me, it sounds less like the issue is that "goliaths are naturally stronger than halflings" and more "goliaths, by virtue of +2 to strength, are designed to excel at melee-focused classes and be mediocre at all others". Assuming you are designing your character to play to its strengths (no pun intended) goliaths are good fighters, barbarians and rangers, decent paladins, and middling average at all else. This was intentional, as the lore, artwork, and mechanics encouraged goliaths to be melee brutes and treated almost all other roles as secondary or inferior options. Could you play a goliath wizard or druid? Yes, but since your effectiveness in a class was often tied to certain ability scores, you were always far better off picking a race whose ASI corresponded with your class's main stats. The issue then became less "goliaths are strong" and more "because they are strong, they are only good as melee warriors".

Thus, if the goal is to break that chain between races excelling at certain classes and not others, (or at least severely weaken it), the only two methods available to us are:

1.) Remove the link between classes needing certain ability scores to function, either making them be able to use any score the PC chooses OR removing influence from the score altogether (such as having spells prepped and spell DCs not influenced by the Int/Wis/Cha of the caster) OR
2.) Removing the link between races granting certain ability score mods that push them towards specific classes.

The 2nd is far easier to do, which is why we got Tasha and not 6e.