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."

 

[Remathilis]

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 will answer that when you can explain to me why five NPC aarakroca can summon an air elemental but four NPC arakroca and a PC aarakroca cannot.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Great! I’m all for the above! Let’s just try to keep combat off that list. Or, if it’s part of combat, as an N times/rest thing, not a constant, omnipresent bonus.

By the way, WotC’s move from “primary attribute modifier times/rest” to “proficiency bonus times/rest” seems to be an implicit acknowledgement that primary attribute is too important.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

I’m comfortable with the idea that some species will have inherent traits that make them naturally better suited to certain tasks than species that lack those traits. I am not comfortable with the idea that some species can never be as good as others at certain tasks. Maybe the halfling will never be able to lift as much through raw muscle force as the goliath, but it should be possible for the halfling to do as well as the Goliath at a manual labor job through some combination of hard work, inginuity, and their own inherent traits such as luck and bravery. Especially in a fantasy context, where being able to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges is part of the core appeal. Heck, the Goliath’s namesake is famous for having been beaten in combat by a tiny guy with a sling.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Frankly, I don't think having 'smart species' is particularly problematic. Vulcans in Star Trek are fine by me (I know some people disagree.) Now having a 'dumb species' is another matter. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but it can get rather nasty very easily. I think it works best with things that are more like smart animals rather than dumb humans. Though such creatures might not make good PCs. (Bugbears in my world are kinda like that, a bit like gorillas that can use some simple tools. Sasquatches basically. I don't know if that's problematic.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Great! I’m all for the above! Let’s just try to keep combat off that list. Or, if it’s part of combat, as an N times/rest thing, not a constant, omnipresent bonus.

Why? Why is combat so special? It is just one small part of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

That is the core of the issue, yes. Ability modifiers have an outsized impact on class effectiveness. I have no problem with Goliaths being stronger than Halflings or elves being more nimble than dwarves. I have a problem with all Goliaths being good melee beat sticks and middling at everything else.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why? Why is combat so special? It is just one small part of the game.

It’s the main player-facing part of the game.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why? Why is combat so special? It is just one small part of the game.

No it’s not, and you know that. If your table is different, you also know you are an outlier.

EDIT: however, I will expand my scope a little. There are non-combat tasks that still depend on the primary attribute. Is casting Suggestion (the DC of which depends on primary stat) out of combat still “combat”? Or there’s the number of spells most casters can know at one time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’m comfortable with the idea that some species will have inherent traits that make them naturally better suited to certain tasks than species that lack those traits. I am not comfortable with the idea that some species can never be as good as others at certain tasks. Maybe the halfling will never be able to lift as much through raw muscle force as the goliath, but it should be possible for the halfling to do as well as the Goliath at a manual labor job through some combination of hard work, inginuity, and their own inherent traits such as luck and bravery. Especially in a fantasy context, where being able to overcome seemingly insurmountable challenges is part of the core appeal. Heck, the Goliath’s namesake is famous for having been beaten in combat by a tiny guy with a sling.

Yes. But not by brute force. The fact is halflings can make excellent combatants in D&D 5E, they have many advantages there. They just need to go with a dex build, just like David. And for me this is a feature, not a bug. It is not that some species should be better, it is that they need to approach things differently. (I think barbarian should be altered slightly to better support dex builds.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It’s the main player-facing part of the game.

I really wouldn't want to play in a campaign in which that was true.