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."

 

[Faolyn]

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.

While it's not necessarily easy to try to make a unique culture for nonhumans, it's also not so difficult as to be impossible. The problem comes when relying on lazy and bigoted tropes to describe a species so you don't end up with "primitive barbarians" or "noble savages" or by saying "these are elves, and their culture is basically Chinese."

I mean, sure, you can very easily say "this world is humans (and maybe people who are part-human or used-to-be-human) only," and that's fine--but that doesn't automatically make it better because you can still have those lazy and bigoted tropes, but with different human cultures instead of with nonhuman cultures.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

And, again, we're focusing on Strength, which gives the pro-ASI crowed their strongest argument.

Make the argument with Intelligence and it starts to feel really sketchy.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes! Exactly!

 

[Charlaquin]

And, again, we're focusing on Strength, which gives the pro-ASI crowed their strongest argument.

Make the argument with Intelligence and it starts to feel really sketchy.

Yeah. I almost used the gnome/orc wizard comparison instead of the halfling/goliath barbarian comparison, but decided not to because I didn’t want to open the door to accusations of pivoting. But yes, the issue, while still present with physical attributes, is more obvious with mental ones.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I also wanna point out that the idea that a people’s writeup having no relation to NPCs of that race is patently absurd.

 

[Scribe]

And, again, we're focusing on Strength, which gives the pro-ASI crowed their strongest argument.

Make the argument with Intelligence and it starts to feel really sketchy.

The same arguments can be made for the other physical attributes.

Elves are more dexterous than Dwarves.
Dwarves are more hardy (of firmer constitution? lol) than Elves.

The halfling/goliath one is just much easier to see as obnoxious if one has issue with all races being 'the same level of good'.

I think the issue is really coming out here, that certain attributes are just too important to certain classes...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

First of I don't agree that the primary stat matters above everything else. But even if I did, classes are just arbitrary game thing. As long as any species-based differences exist, certain species will be better at certain things. Species with 'powerful build' will be better at jobs requiring lifting heavy things (so most physical labour), species with darkvision will make better night watch and thieves, species with better movement let alone flight will make better couriers, species which can breathe under water make better divers. That some 'jobs' are mechanically defined as classes in mechanics and some not really doesn't matter.

 

[Remathilis]

While it's not necessarily easy to try to make a unique culture for nonhumans, it's also not so difficult as to be impossible. The problem comes when relying on lazy and bigoted tropes to describe a species so you don't end up with "primitive barbarians" or "noble savages" or by saying "these are elves, and their culture is basically Chinese."

The issue is though; humans (and we are, for the most part, all humans) tend to only see the world as we can see it. We tend to model our games after stereotypical cultures because 1.) it's what we know and 2.) it's what we imagine makes sense since we've seen it. Ergo, a race ends up taking on some aspect of a human culture we already know because it's really difficulty to create (let alone role-play) a culture or mindset that is utterly alien to us.

 

[Charlaquin]

I also wanna point out that the idea that a people’s writeup having no relation to NPCs of that race is patently absurd.

It really isn’t. D&D is an asymmetrical game. The DM’s game pieces (NPCs) function by different rules than the other players’ game pieces (PCs) do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I also wanna point out that the idea that a people’s writeup having no relation to NPCs of that race is patently absurd.

I haven’t seen anybody make that argument, which makes me suspect I either don’t understand your point, or maybe missed a post. Could you elaborate?